The Nature vs. Nurture Debate - Understanding Your Dog’s Behaviour

One of the longest-running debates in the study of behaviour concerns the roles of nature and nurture: is behaviour inherited through genes, or is it shaped by life experiences?

If you have ever wondered whether your dog’s love for adventure or fear of thunderstorms is something they were born with, or the result of how they were raised, you have probably asked yourself this very same question. The truth, however, is that it’s not a simple either-or. It’s both.

Nature refers to how genetics influence an individual, whereas nurture refers to how the environment impacts their development. However, understanding our dog's behaviour goes beyond the simple nature vs. nurture debate. In reality, behaviour is shaped by a complex interaction of many factors, including genetics, previous experiences, environment, health, and diet. Each of these factors plays an important role in how our dogs respond to the world around them.

How old is the Nature versus nurture debate?

The debate over nature versus nurture has deep roots, stretching back thousands of years to ancient Greek philosophers who theorised about the causes of personality.

However, the modern framing of the debate emerged much later. The term “nature versus nurture” was coined in 1874 by the English Victorian scholar Francis Galton. Influenced by the work of his cousin, Charles Darwin, particularly Darwin's The Origin of Species, Galton argued that inherited factors were responsible for intelligence and other characteristics. In his book English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture, Galton argued that inherited factors were responsible for intelligence and other characteristics.

Galton’s views were in clear opposition with earlier theories, notably that of philosopher John Locke, who proposed the idea of the tabula rasa, the notion that we are born as "blank slates," with no inherent traits or inclinations and that our experiences shape our identity and character entirely. Locke emphasised the freedom of the individual to be master of their own identity, free from the constraints of genetics or innate nature. However, the idea that we are born as completely blank slates has since been disproven.

Sadly, some people still hold the belief that puppies are born as blank slates, which we know is not the case. Suggesting a dogs behaviour is only the result of how they are raised completely ignores biological influences and the complex interplay between genetics and environment.

,

Problems with the nature–nurture debate

The problem with the nature–nurture debate is that it creates an artificial division between the contributions of heredity and learning. The debate wrongly implies that the answer must be one or the other. By framing the argument as a choice between one or the other, the debate oversimplifies the reality of how behaviour develops.

Paul Chance, in Learning and Behaviour, perfectly captures the complexity of the nature versus nurture debate, describing them as being inextricably interwoven in a Gordian knot, two strands so tightly bound that they cannot be separated. Rather than viewing nature and nurture as isolated influences, it is far more accurate to recognise them as interconnected elements, constantly interacting and shaping behaviour throughout an individual’s life.

Psychologist Donald Hebb famously responded to the question, “Which contributes more to personality, nature or nurture?” with the analogy: “Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?” This answer simply explains that neither nature nor nurture explains an individual's behaviour, there is not one cause. However, it's important to note that there is some historical ambiguity regarding the attribution of this analogy to Hebb. While many sources quote Hebb, some suggest that the analogy may have been used by others, and the specifics of its origin remain unclear. Regardless of its attribution, the message remains clear: behaviour cannot be understood as the result of just one factor. It is the complex and ever-evolving interaction of both genetics and life experiences that determines how an individual behaves.

In a 2016 study titled Nature and Nurture—How Different Conditions Affect the Behaviour of Dogs, researcher Erik Wilson examined the impact of various conditions on the behaviour of working dogs. The study focused on understanding how both genetics and training influence the behaviours of juvenile dogs. Wilson found the juvenile dogs were affected by the way they had been raised and trained. Wilson concluded genetics and training of dogs cannot be treated as two separate parts.

Beyond Nature vs. Nurture: Understanding the Complex Factors That Shape Your Dog's Behaviour

So as you can see the nature v’s nurture debate has been going on for hundreds of years, perhaps longer. Many people still lean strongly toward the idea that genes or experiences pretty much dictate our behaviour. However, what science consistently reveals is that the two are inextricably intertwined, it is difficult if not impossible to separate them.

When we apply this understanding to our dogs, it becomes clear that their behaviour is shaped by both nature and nurture. But even this dual perspective does not fully explain the complexity of canine behaviour. There are many additional factors, such as health, nutrition, age, and emotional well-being, that also play crucial roles in canine behaviour.

Just like humans, dogs are influenced by an intricate web of internal and external factors that interact in unique ways to shape their personalities and behaviours.

Reference:

Wilsson, E. (2016). Nature and nurture—How different conditions affect the behavior of dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 16, 45-52.