In the Nature Versus Nurture Debate, Intuition Is a Common Denominator

People across cultures share similar assumptions about when children's mental abilities emerge and whether they are innate or learned, according to a study involving a Rutgers researcher

It's an age-old question: When does the mind develop? Science offers answers, but people often rely on intuition instead - and new research co-authored by a Rutgers developmental psychologist suggests those intuitions are similar across cultures, even when they conflict with scientific evidence.

In findings published in Psychological Science, Jenny Wang, an assistant professor of cognitive psychology at the School of Arts and Sciences, reports that adults in six countries consistently divide children's cognitive abilities into innate (nature) and learned (nurture) traits but assign them to groups based on assumptions rather than science.

For instance, when asked at what age a child begins to understand how others feel, most respondents said about four years old - even though research suggests infants show signs of empathy as early as 9 months. Similarly, babies may be born with a sense of morality, a trait survey respondents attributed to upbringing.

"It's intuitive to think of many mental capacities as attributes that require explicit teaching," said Wang, who conducted the study with colleagues in Japan. "Yet, as our research suggests, there can be a conflict between science and intuition."

The researchers wanted to know how nonscientists think about cognitive development and whether intuitions are culturally consistent or variable. In a series of surveys with participants in Australia, Britain, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and the United States, respondents estimated the age at which they believed 40 different mental capacities first emerge.

Capacities included "exercising self-restraint," "telling right from wrong," "feeling safe," "being conscious" and "having a personality."

The open-ended nature of the survey was intentional. The researchers weren't interested in how well respondents understood scientific theories about mental development. Instead, they wanted to identify patterns in participants' intuitive beliefs about the mind.

The responses revealed a consistent pattern across cultures. Perceptions were organized along two dimensions: an earlier-developing perceptual and experiential dimension and a later-developing, reflective and evaluative dimension.

In the former category, respondents grouped capacities such as seeing, fear, hunger and pain. In the latter, they placed items such as reasoning, beliefs, self-restraint and pride.

In a final survey, respondents were asked what percentage of each trait they attributed to nature or nurture - the longstanding idea that human behavior is determined by biological or external factors, such as upbringing.

Again, results reveal a consistent pattern: The more a capacity is judged innate (nature), the earlier it is believed to emerge in human development, whereas capacities perceived as acquired through experience (nurture) are estimated to emerge later in life.

Xianwei Meng, lead author and associate professor from the Graduate School of Informatics at Nagoya University, said the findings help reconcile a long-running debate in mind perception research.

"Previous research has proposed several competing models of how people perceive mental life," Meng said. "Our findings suggest that these models are not necessarily contradictory. Instead, the structure people perceive depends on the perspective they take."

Taken together, the surveys suggest people share remarkably similar intuitions about how the mind develops - even when those assumptions are spurious. While cultures differ in the mental capacities they prioritize (placing a premium on early independence, for instance, or community participation), assumptions about developmental milestones appear to be shared.

But being universally wrong about science might, counterintuitively, benefit humanity, Wang said.

"This tendency to think of innate mental capacities as being learned or as requiring more nurturing is actually good for the human race, especially if people think that they should put in more effort nurturing kids," she said.

Explore more of the ways Rutgers research is shaping the future.