“Genes play role in grade school bullying, a new
study says”
We are all aware that kids can be mean and act as bullies. Many factors play into these behaviors
– recently, a new study has focused on the victims’…genes. This article highlights the impact of
genetic makeup on behavior and social interaction.
What are your thoughts about gene-environment interactions? Do you think one can override the
other? And what about the bullies? Do you think the bullies have an
“aggression” gene?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/genes-play-role-in-grade-school-bullying-new-study-says-1.1117122
While I do believe that there are certain genes can impact a person’s behavior, I do not believe that someone’s genes alone can make them out to be bully. As the article states at the end, I believe that the environmental factors, together with some genetic factors, dictate a student’s personality in school. I think that the environmental factors play a bigger role in this than the genes, however. The family environment, socioeconomic factors, and the traits of a child’s peers, are all large influences on how a student acts at school. By studying twins, it is hard to isolate for these factors, as most twins are raised in the same household, and will share the majority of these environmental experiences at such an early age. While genetics and environment are important, I think that the environmental factors can override the genetic factors.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that students who are bullies at school have an aggression gene. I believe it is more likely that there are environmental reasons while they act they way they do. They may not have the best home lives, and feel the need for more attention at school, or they may be acting out in reaction to the way they are treated at home or at school. Often times, if you work with a student and talk to them about why they do the things they do, there is an explanation that can be linked to an environmental factor. I think these types of factors play a much larger role in why a student is a bully than their genes.
I do not doubt that someone’s genes can play a role in their personality. I just do not believe that it is the main reason someone acts the way that they do.
Just as Jessica stated, while genetics play a role in a person’s behavior, I do not believe that it determines a person’s fate or actions one hundred percent. I believe that in today’s society, people don’t like to take responsibility for their actions, and when they hear things that have a genetic link, such as alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, etc., some may think of it as an inevitable trait he or she will possess automatically at some point in the future. But genetics is only one part of many that take place in determining certain characteristics or behaviors. For example, if a man knows that obesity runs in the family, he may think that becoming overweight is inevitable for him due to his genetic makeup. But really, it may just mean that he must work harder than another person would to make sure he stays healthy through diet and exercise. In some ways, it can be very beneficial to know one has a genetic predisposition for something; this way, that person can take all the known precautions to help him or her in the prevention of the disease or problem ahead of time. Genetics is one part of the equation, but lifestyle is another very important factor. In fact, some studies suggest that, in terms of health, “lifestyle may be more important than genetics.”
Deletehttp://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/heart-health-behavior-trumps-genetics/
Also, I agree with what Lisa Moreira said below. I believe we have our focus in the wrong areas. We should not focus on causes of negative behaviors, but, instead, focus on changing the environments these children are going to school in on a day-to-day basis. Also, we could teach children to express their negative feelings or their aggression in more positive and productive ways instead of bullying. Maybe teaching them coping mechanisms for their anger, or different ways to express themselves in a more productive way.
Chin Chu
DeleteWhile I do not doubt that genetics has an impact on personality and physical traits, I do not believe that it is sufficient enough to explain bullying. In a sense, I think that the quest to find the link between genes and vulnerability to bullying is unnecessary, even self-defeating. I find it even more troubling when Boivin makes a suggestion to “parents who believe their children are exhibiting problematic behaviour would be wise to try and nip the issues in the bud at an early age”. How can you “nip” something that is already so grounded within our genome? As a society, we should be celebrating the slight differences in base pairs that make all of us unique. The article suggests that we should create an environment that “limits social ostracism”. While I agree with this suggestion, we should not create an environment that forces children to conform (as Boivin suggests). If there’s a source of bullying, I believe that it is stemming from society’s expectation to conform, not just genetics.
I also agree with Jessica Guccione’s commentary on the twins study. Unless they did a study on twins who were separated at birth and raised in another country, there is no way to determine if genetics has an impact on the vulnerability of children because of the effects that socioeconomic status, education, and family upbringing might bring. Even if there was a gene-environment link to bullying, the only thing we can possibly (and ethically) change is the environment. I agree with Max Gershersen in that genetics view of bullying excuses the behavior as something that is natural on the grounds that it is simply a gene-environmental relationship. So instead, we should focus more on what we can do to prevent bullying.
Genes and environment are interconnected enough that we should try to find more about what genes change in expression as aggression increases. We know enough about diet and prent-child psychology that lends upbringing to be a very dominant factor in whether a person will actually end up being aggressive. Students who display bullying are showing a weak personality because of their own self esteem issues.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe judging people by genetic makeup for issues of personality should be a primary concern of medicine but perhaps it is better to study what habits lead to the expression and further try to make sense of the role of epigenetics and heredity in personality. Behaviors are passed down, but it is hard to tell what the affinity for aggressive behavior is relative to family history.
School bullying is currently a major problem, and it must be prevented; I do not think that focusing on genetic make-up will help resolve this problem. I think that genetics may play a role in our personality, but that it is only a minor one. Instead of focusing on how a child's genetic make-up may make him or her aggressive, I think it is crucial to focus on improving a child's environment because a child's experiences can influence how they interact with other children. I disagree when Michel Boivin says, "a child's genes will often dictate the way they act, which will in turn shape their experiences both in and out of the classroom." I would argue that children learn bullying from home or watching violent events happen in their environment. Bullying is a learned behavior and it is rather silly to think children carry an "aggressive gene."
ReplyDeleteIn another article I found (http://www.parentdish.com/2011/04/25/bullying-study/), the CDC used data from MA and concluded that children who were bullies and their victims reported witnessing violence or being hurt at home more often than children who were not bullies or victims. All in all, I think aggressive behavior is learned at home and repeated in the school setting. This is a major problem and needs to decreased significantly.
I agree with Lisa; I think the environment plays a much greater role in personality than genes. Overall, I find this article puzzling. The researchers are putting the blame for bullying on the victim’s genes, saying some are more prone to bullying. Shouldn’t it be the other way around- bullies may have genes which cause more aggressive phenotypes, for example? I believe that genes act as a template, with certain characteristics expressing themselves in different environments. I think that the environment predominates over genes when determining phenotypes. However, this article implies that the victim’s genes act on the environment (of peers), determining how the peers respond to the victim. If a child even does possess these genetic factors which supposedly cause victimization, a corrective environment could change the child’s experience (such as a parent intervening or teaching the child how to deal with the bullying). While bullies could have an “aggression gene,” I think that environment plays a much greater role in determining whether a person will bully another person. For example, bullies have probably experienced abuse or bullying in the past, causing them to learn that it is an acceptable behavior. Also, bullying encompasses a range of behaviors. How can the researchers make the conclusion that one victim who is bullied for their poor athletic skills in gym class, has the same genetic factors which cause victimization in another person bullied for being very tall?
DeleteBriana Zinsmeyer
ReplyDeleteI do believe that bullying is a huge problem, and there needs to be more to prevent it, although I do not believe we can point all fingers at ones’ genes. Ones’ environment and the atmosphere in which they are surrounded by are majorly influential on the way in which they tend to act. I agree that genes contribute to ones’ personality, so many other things influence the way in which we act. As a society, I don’t think focusing on genetic makeup will solve the problem of bullying. We should focus on changing the environment in and way in which children learn to be bullies. Children are human sponges, they absorb everything going on around them and in turn act in the way they observe. If their parents have aggressive tendencies, they in turn will have aggressive tendencies. This certainly may have to do with some genetic disposition, but certainly is more of a learned behavior rather. Bullying seems to be a huge problem more recently, rather than years ago, as in when our parents went to school. My mother can’t believe how aggressive children are these days. I think that it is because society has made them that way, not because genes have dramatically changed. More recently, even cartoons are more aggressive. Movies, video games, and even sports have become more violent and aggressive. In turn, children act in the way in which they see. Boivin and his colleagues studied nearly 800 pairs of both identical and fraternal twins, interviewing the students three times over a five-year period.
The article stated that, "The genes make it more likely that a child will behave a certain way and then have a certain experience, but it's not an absolute determinism," he said. "If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes." I agree with this statement, rather than his general conclusion that genes play a good part of bullying. Environment is a greater determining factor than genes. The genes are there regardless of environment, but the environment definitely influences how the child will act.
After reading this article, I wanted to look at it from another perspective, those who are being bullied. Are children bullied because they have a “passive or weak” gene? Are they bullied because they simply look easy to pick on? I found another article suggesting that children who are bullied have shorter gene copies. It suggests that the shorter genes promote a more intense emotional response and are therefore more affected by bullying.
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/05/27/gene-makes-kids-more-vulnerable-to-bullyings-effects
In both cases, it comes down to environment. If the children who are bullied in the second article had never been exposed to bullies, would they still be more prone to be sensitive?
I can see where the article is coming from. Genes do have an influence on personality and the way that we interact in social settings. However, as previously mentioned by other commenters, as well as within the article, genes are only half of the influence when it comes to social interaction. Environmental factors are a large contributor to how children are shaped, from initial interactions at home to then, at school. Genetic makeup may lead some children to be more outgoing or aggressive, but I think it's more a case of how parents react to their children's personalities, how they discipline and reward them, that shapes the way these behaviors are then materialized in school. I don't think it appropriate to assess children's potential personality tendencies on their DNA. In fact, "limiting social ostracism" should be approached through creating healthier learning environments, developing classroom dynamics that benefit all children and limiting bullying through attention and appropriate reaction, rather than DNA analyses. Furthermore, genetic testing is clearly helpful, especially when it comes to diseases that are due to chromosomal mutations; however, in areas that are more social science, such as children's interactions at school, it is perhaps foolish to think that finding a genetic tie-in to a problem will create pathways to viable solutions, when in fact it may be wiser to focus on other strategies to improve.
ReplyDeleteI tend to believe that many things lie in the genetics of an individual, but as mentioned at the very end - social environments, mixed with genetics, dictate personal behavior. This comes down to further research on genetics and the link between genetic makeup and certain behaviors. 800 pairs is not nearly enough to indicate a correlation between genetics and child's peer interactions.
ReplyDeleteBoivin does make a great point stating that he is not trying to assess the twin's individual personality traits, but evaluating the ways classmates perceived and treated them. This helps indicate that environmental causes can still hold true especially because then parents can focus on their child's personality via social environment. He mentions that a parent should "try and nip the issues in the bud at an early stage," which is what most parents tend to do, but those that do not end up having problematic children that can be seen as bullies in school.
I do not necessarily agree that genes make up the fact of who gets bullied or who becomes the bully because even if personal appearance does factor into a child's social experience most of what we do in social situations comes from external factors. I do believe "limiting social ostracism" can be seen as a healthy learning environment as Maysam mentions and we should see this as an education experience. Think about nutrition in schools. Do you think there would be a decrease in obesity rates if there was more nutrition education in schools? OR Do you think there would be a decrease in obesity rates if there was more nutrition education in schools focusing on the behavior of children's interaction with food and a more healthy cafeteria environment? This is the same message that should be sent to parents. Focus on the behaviors and the learning will come naturally.
Today, bullying is the cause of many news headlines and is having a huge impact on the lives of children throughout the nation. I feel that action does need to be taken against bullying. However, to say that genetics is the basis for all bullying seems to be a bit extreme. Personally, it seems as if this article puts more emphasis on those being bullied and on their genes, rather than examining why some children bully. While I do agree with the statement that genes and environment both impact tan individual’s personality, I do not think this is enough to say that genes are the main reason children are bullied. The article concludes with a quotation that claims if you change the environment, then you change the way in which the genes are expressed. I think that this is an accurate statement and also puts more emphasis on the role that environment plays in shaping a person’s social abilities rather than genes. Lastly, I think it is a flaw of the study that researchers chose to evaluate the way classmates perceive and treat other children. Kids can be hard on one another and judge their classmates harshly, thus it is possible that information provided from this study and its results may be biased and not entirely accurate.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting point you made about the study focusing solely on children in school. It seems very debatable...I could see how analyzing the behavior of children could seem a bit pointless for the study, since kids are simply too young to be judged on behavior just yet. They could be behaving in a certain way because that is what they have seen the adults around them behave as, versus it being genetic. However a possible benefit of researching the behavior of children, could be the fact that children are at that age when they tend to be very honest and uninhibited...so the true behavior/responses come out...which tends to side more with genetics instead of environment. As you get older, you tend to alter your behavior to suit the environment you are in.
DeleteThe nature nurture debate has been an ongoing issue between those in the medical field and the field of psychology for centuries. I have always thought that we could never truly get to the bottom of the debate - how can we every really know, 100%, that a certain trait or behavior is the result of the environment or one's genes? In the case of an "aggression gene," I think it is very farfetched to attribute this trait to solely genetics. This is proposing the idea that a child, no matter how they were raised, would have an innate sense of being mean and aggressive to others due to genetics. How can geneticists be sure that their environment played no part in this? If a child comes from an aggressive household, with fighting siblings, parents, neighbors, etc., can we really say that this wouldn't influence the child's behavior? If most of the examples of interactions the child witnessed were of an aggressive nature, we can only expect this child to act in the same way.
ReplyDeleteSomething in the article that sparked an interest in me was when the author pointed out that genetics ultimately code our appearances. Could this possibly be a reason why genes indirectly affect our tendency to be aggressive? As it is constantly portrayed in the media and in real life situations, it is often those with unfavorable appearances that get bullied. This is not at all to say that those with more appealing features are born to be bullies, but I think it creates a possible indirect link from genetics to the behavior itself. I think it'd be interesting to look further into how appearances really affect how one acts on a daily basis and how they interact with peers.
The article raises the long standing and ongoing debate between nature vs. nuture. One can not only blame geens for a persons actions. EVen if there is some sort of predisposition , each person has the choice act upon their impulse to bully or not. Unfortunately there are many children who are either exposed to bullying, victims of bully or both. However not ever one of those children turn around and bully. Conscious decision as to either engage in bullying or not need to be made.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990310053751.htm
In "Bullying Behavior: Blame It On Bad Genes?", from ScienceDaily.com researchers studied 1022 Swedish twins and 501 English twins, In their findings they report that Aggressive behavior can be inherited, but social environment plays a highly significant role in non-aggressive antisocial behavior and peer influences play a major role for both boys and girls and may be quite different for each member of a twin pair. Identifying and placing responsibility on a childs environment is crucial in determing their likelihood of bullying.
It is important not to dismiss personal responsibility when trying to determine the cause of individual, or group behavior. As aforementioned people young or old have decision to make pertaining to just about every aspect of there life. The decision they make not only affect them but their peers as well. To aid in the fight against bullying individuals need to not only become aware of its prevalencce but also its aftermath. The only thing blaming genes for bullying does is give individuals the opportunity to not accept personal responsibility for their actions and the right to say my genes made me do it.
As stated before by my fellow classmates, bullying has become a major issue in the US and deserves ample attention. However, is this really the attention it needs? While genomics is an amazing field that certainly can provide insight to many parts of life, this to me seems like we're trying to reinvent a way to fix a ripped piece of paper when all it calls for is tape. No doubt genetics plays a huge role in our everyday lives, but certain behaviors are much more dependent on "nurture" rather than "nature". Studying childrens' genes to find out who is "predetermined" to be bullied/ become a bully seems like a waste of time when the issue could be solved by simply educating all children about respecting one another and how not to be a bystander.
ReplyDeleteBy changing the environment that children go to school in (providing more adults and peers for students to go to for help) we can substantially decrease the frequency that bullying happens.
http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2012/12/scientists-rediscover-violence-gene.html
The MAOA is a gene inherited mainly by white men, but has been linked to a significant increase in violent delinquency. The MAOA-R3 gene is a more common form found among men of other races as well.The R"#" refers to how many times the gene is repeated. The gene is referred to as "the warrior gene". The graph given shows a much higher rate of serious delinquency in men who have the MAOA-2R gene vs. men without the gene.
In this case there is certainly a correlation between violent behavior and genetics. But the bigger point here is this gene is also triggered by chidhood abuse. The environment partially determines how this gene presents. Therefore, in the case of bullying, if we can simply provide a nurturing environment that is open and tolerant perhaps these "bullying genes" might not even present themselves. Furthermore, even if they do, that is when it becomes society's duty to put in place rules and regulations to stop the behavior of bullying from harming other children.
Genetics is an incredible field of study, but it should not be over-hyped and the more simple (and sometimes more effective) fixes to life should not be underestimated and overlooked.
Tory, I agree with you. Bullying is a major issue in the US and I think the environment is a large factor of a person's personality, not their genes. I hate to bring this up but let's talk about the current debate on gun control. I see the gene/bully situation very similar to someone's view of gun control. Even though guns, at least until now, are available, the environment sets how the guns are used: for harm or not used at all. If we ban guns, that would definitely decrease the access of a dangerous weapon but if the environment stays the same, people will look into other means of harm. Same with genes, even if an "aggressive" gene is present in someone's DNA, the environment sets the level of aggressiveness in a person. This quote from the article provided supports the environmental side: "The genes make it more likely that a child will behave a certain way and then have a certain experience, but it's not an absolute determinism," [Boivin] said. "If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes."
DeleteGoing on about what you said about how we are wasting time on focusing on this instead of trying to improve the environment is a great point. It is great knowledge to add about genomics but we cannot solely depend on someone's DNA to categorize them as bully/victim or not. I also think that if this theory of a specific gene making someone associated with a certain personality is publicized the wrong way, then parents may look at it as a dead end for them - that their child was meant to be like that and there is no way of changing it because it is in their genes.
But let's say we continue with this information. Would we separate the children with a specific gene and put them in a special school to protect them from bullies? Yes, that will be changing the environment for them, but it may do more harm than good -- and also a waste of resources compared to if we just work on the environment as a whole for all children.
They say don't judge a book by its cover, but can you argue the judgement of an entire human genome? I don't think so. This similar argument has been going on for many years about pit bulls. Are pitbulls genetically made to be dog fighting monsters or is it their owners that make them like that?
ReplyDeleteAlthough there is a genetic predisposition that increase the chances of a gene to be expressed, an aggressive gene may never be visibly seen. Being aware of the greater chances of being a bully can allow a better chance of being properly raised. Perhaps more attention and emphasis on how to properly treat others. Although this sounds like common sense people do not share the same values in parenting. This may bring awareness to the parents in order for them to plan accordingly. Even then there is no guarantee. A person develops over many years through interactions with parents, peers, teachers, etc. There is no single cause to bullying, just a chain of unfortunate events that brings the "bully" out in a child. There is also no single kind of bullying. Boys are more likely to be involved with physical bullying while girls are more likely to be involved with psychological bullying. In this case the type of bully someone is predisposed to be is most likely genetic as it is clear what the common standard is as far as what gender bullies in what way. Bullying is also seen to be an occurrence in younger children. This could be seen as a nurture argument because many children are susceptible to poor parenting or traumatic events that causes lashing out in the form of bullying. It is difficult to say, as I'm sure this argument will continue on for many years. What can be concluded though, in my opinion, is that there should not be nature or nurture, but rather a discussion on how the two influence each other.
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/nature_vs_nurture_can_you_ever_really_trust_a_pit_bull/7201/
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aqoNKILBoxAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA227&dq=are+bullies+born+or+raised&ots=QonNCLr34x&sig=Ov6gRZisiK4luNvT827jurXaufc#v=onepage&q=are%20bullies%20born%20or%20raised&f=false
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213498000490
This article is one of many that continue to question the role of nature versus nurture. Yes, our genetic makeup plays a large role in determining our personality, our looks and our susceptibility to certain diseases. However, I believe the environment in which we grow up and consequent interventions also play a large role in how we turn out as human beings. I believe in some situations genes may have the upper hand but when it comes to bullying and victimization, nurture makes a big difference. Like the article suggests behavior that indicates a child may become a future bully should be taken care of early in childhood before it evolves into something much worse. As suggested by many of my peers in the earlier comments, bullying has become an issue of epic proportions in recent years in the United States sometimes for the victim it can be a matter of life or death. While some people may have more aggressive tendencies if they work very hard to control their anger issues and tendency to victimize others this genetic characteristic can be easily resolved. Parents should take the time from early on to teach their children how to treat others and that being mean and bullying other children will get them no where in life. Parents should remind their children that people will always remember how you treated them and having people fear you is not admirable rather they should respect you.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Amika said above. In psychology there is a constant discussion on how much gene-environment interactions come into play when it comes to personality and behaviors. Genes play a significant role in the structure of the brain. Different structures of the brain are responsible for different things, if a part of the brain is fundamentally different than a typical brain there may be drastic changes in its function. For example, the amygdala (or the amygdaloid process) has many links to the emotional state of a person. Research shows that psychopaths are more likely to have a shrunken amygdala and feel less remorse. On the other hand, if the amygdala is over active then there can be issues with fear and anxiety. So here, with just one small piece of the brain there are vary complex outcomes that effect behavior.
Deletehttp://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749
Are genes alone enough to explain aggressive behavior in children? I do not think so. The environment in which they are in and their upbringing are significant roles of the equation. It is much more difficult to qualitate nurture however.
Although I agree that genes can cause some aspects of bullying, they cannot be blamed for all of it. Social factors also play a large role. Children are very harsh so if you don't look the same way as everyone else the other kids will bully you and the shy child who doesn't interact much also will be bullied; these are all factors that can be attributed to genetics.
ReplyDeleteIn an experiment done by the University of Texas in Austin entitled “Born to be a Bully” (http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2002/bully.html), they used a litter of hamsters placing the control group into an empty unfamiliar cage for one hour a day and the experimental group was placed in a cage with older hamsters who would be aggressive and hostile towards them. This study showed that as a result of the large amount of cortisol released there was abnormal brain development and brain changes. The hamsters that were bullied turned into bullies themselves.
This demonstrates that although some people can be more prone to be a bully or be bullied this is affected a large amount by social factors. If someone is bullied at home they can become a bully; if that same person has a genetic predisposition to bullying they will most likely become a bully in this case. There are many people who are predisposed that do not become bullies or victims of bullying but are never parts of this vicious cycle. Social factors play a large part in determining aspects of a person’s life.
Michel Boivin poses an new argument relating the behavior and characteristics of interaction between children in the classroom to their physical genetic makeup. He didnt necessarily study the characteristics of the child, but rather the way he was treated amongst his peers and in his social group. The study was conducted with identical and fraternal twins to compare whether results differed substantially among indivduals with identical or similar DNA. Boivin found there to be a direct link in victimization among these young peer to genetic factors in identical twins. This study implies that characteristics such as hyperactivity, aggression and impulsivity may be a component of your inborn genetic makeup, that can only be controlled limitedly.
ReplyDeleteEven though his findings suggest this behavior to be the result of your genetic makeup, Boivin makes a strong emphasizm on the fact that parents should not take this information as a reason to give up. Rather, parents should become more aware of their childs natural tendencies and modify the childs environment to ensure that they are not placed somewhere that encourgaes such a behavior to launch or manifest in surroudings that encourage it.
As my peers have repeatedly mentioned in previous comments, this is a continuous battle between nature vs. nurture and the combination of both working together to create an outcome. If it becomes apparent at a young age that the child has a tendency to express aggresive behavior, I believe it is the duty of the parent to make sure they do not facilitate the display of such a behavior, but like any other genetic trait, every human is born with imperfections and I believe part of what makes us human is the ability to work through these imperfections, using it as a strength instead of looking down on it as a weakness.
Bullying has existed as long as societal interaction has, and we had still have never had as high rates of violence and aggression as we do today in the school system so I believe we need to look deeper into lifestyle and what we expose our children to before we criticize individuals for having "bad" DNA.
This seems like a stretch. This entire article seems to be grasping at straws. While I understand that genes control a large portion of our lives I do not believe that they are factors in whether someone is a bully or will be bullied. While I understand that scientist believe that genes that may indicate a predisposition to aggression or inattentiveness may lead to social alienation, I am a firm believer that it is the experiences of the individual and the way parents raise their children and how they act in front of them that is the major factor in how a child will act. Before we start looking at genetics for the reason that kids are bullied we should stop and take a look at our own social infrastructure. What we have here is a major social issue that is calling us trying to get our attention. Yet we seem to be trying to find every way around admitting what the problem is. The problem is not genetics or predisposition to being bullied or being a bully, its a problem with the way we as Americans are raising children and the whole defense of bullying that we ourselves display. We defend bullies saying they are troubled or they only meant their actions as a joke. Using genetics as a defense or rationalization of bullying is just ignoring a bigger problem at hand.
ReplyDeleteThe article does not convince me that bullying is caused by DNA. Nurture, not nature, makes much more sense as the cause. While qualities such as being an extrovert or introvert do have to do with one's genetics, bullying is in a different category. This has more to do with one's life experiences, their environment, their relationships, and how these aspects have shaped their self esteem and behaviors.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I feel a clear definition of "bullying" is very important when discussing genetic findings. What some may find as bullying may be different to others. Bullying does not have a phenotypic characteristic such as blue eyes or height. I think this fact will make it even harder to scientifically prove the link between a gene and bullying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Mackie in her post above uses the word that comes to mind when I consider the concept of a "bully gene": EXTREME! To believe that there is a gene that determines if a child will bully or be bullied is to believe that the nature/nurture interaction theory of development is a complete fallacy. Children who bully other children are attempting to express their superiority to hide their own insecurities; bullying behavior is something that is learned, and it could be copied from some other experience (i.e. home life) (1). Though I do believe it is possible to have a genetic predisposition to being an angry person, I do not believe that this would translate directly to the child's likelihood to be a bully in every case. I maintain that it is not likely in "every case" because children who do not receive the proper guidance in their upbringings from family as to how to treat others may express their anger or lack of self-love in the form of bullying other children at school. The emphasis here has shifted and lies more heavily on the upbringing of the child, not solely on their genetic predisposition to inheriting a trait. This article disregards the "nurture" aspect of the debate, which I believe deserves much attention. It is possible to be an angry person by genetics, but through love a child can be taught to treat others with love also.
ReplyDelete(1) http://extension.unh.edu/Family/Parent/teenpubs/bully.pdf
I fully agree with Gina's response. It does seem a little extreme that we are looking for a scapegoat to bullying through individuals' genes. Although I do believe that there may be some genetic predisposition linked to bullying, I think that the majority of bullying is influenced by how an individual is raised and the situations he/she is exposed to in society. At a young age, every grade-school child wants to earn the badge of being "cool" amongst his/her friends and many times, unfortunately, this badge of "coolness" is earned by picking on another child that seems to be a bit different than everybody else.
DeleteMost of the time, I believe it's easy for bullies to find that one kid in school that doesn't listen to mainstream music, and doesn't watch mainstream movies, and doesn't wear the fashionable clothes that are "in style." As a child, if an individual is harnessed by his parents from current media, then that individual slowly begins to fall out of sync with society. To become a victim, I believe, has a lot to do with how strict one's parents are and this goes the same for children who are bullies too.
It is not very surprising that there are studies showing that children who are abused throughout their childhood, grow up to be abusive and violent themselves (1). I DO believe that in certain cases, characteristics such as aggression and impulsiveness as mentioned in the article, are hereditary. However, it takes certain environmental influence to engage that particular gene. It's impossible to point our fingers at either nature or nurture to blame in the end, as there will also always be those individuals who have the gene for aggression and impulsiveness and yet, grow up to never commit any violent acts towards others. In the case of bullying, whether it is genetic or not, more emphasis should be put on the nurture aspect because that is something that we can change as a society.
(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-517241.html
This article tries to establish an example of nature vs. nurture in that the question asks whether we are born bullies or whether one’s genetics, when fostered in a specific environment, allows bulling behavior to grow. I definitely agree that under the right circumstances, certain behaviors such as bullying can flourish where in other places it would not otherwise. If a person grows up in a place where anti bullying is heavily valued, it is less likely the person will become a bully. However in a negative environment where the opposite is true, there is a stronger chance the person will become a bully. In my opinion I have to agree with some of my fellow classmates in that it is a stretch to link science and aggressive bullying behavior. I believe that genetic makeup is not an excuse or predisposition for not behaving in an ethical manner since bullies know from right and wrong. Bullies are born with a moral compass and choose to ignore it at the expense of their victims.
ReplyDeleteI think if a person has “an aggressive gene” that may cause them to be violent and become a bully, there are other ways to channel the behavior in a healthy controlled environment. For instance I watched a news special on some extreme sports players and how they first were introduced to their sport. They all exhibited risky dangerous behaviors as young children such as climbing telephone poles, very tall trees and trying out flips on their bikes. Since their parents could not get their children to stop, the parents decided that they might be able to control and channel their children’s behavior in extreme sports. Not only were they surrounded by responsible experienced coaches, but the children were able to become disciplined and were able to “act out” in a safe environment.
I think this article (while interesting), is a huge disservice to advocates who are trying to combat bullying. The findings can easily be misused and give bullies the upper hand (especially in legal/court cases) in that they might not be held accountable. Instead of “not guilty on plea of insanity”, will court cases involving bullying have “not guilty because I was born to be a bully”? Our legal system would be in disarray. The bullies, not their DNA, must be held accountable for their actions.
Ah the century old discussion that has plagued many philosophers and psychologists over the centuries about Nature vs. Nurture. It seems many of our classmates have made this similar distinction that Nature without nurture or more specifically Genetics without Environmental factors seems incomplete. And it seems like the trend of most people in the science community that both genetic/ inherited characteristics as well as social environments determine how a person acts and becomes who they are.
ReplyDeleteNow in regards to bullying it seems all to easy to make excuses for kids with inherited genetics for aggressiveness or even mean-ness.
I agree with the article in the sense that genetics play a role in so far as a person’s looks, aspects of personality, as well as tendencies. However as much as genetics are involved I believe just as important is parenting, social constructs, and role-models. If a child who is genetically associated with one who is supposed to be a bully is parented well, taught to respect his or her peers, and is influenced with a positive teacher or figure then I believe that this genetic bully will not act as a bully acts. Again I don’t want to make excuses for people who are bullies because that’s how they are genetically made. But at the same time some characteristics that make people who they are shouldn’t be hidden either. For example if aggressiveness has a genetic link, hiding it is not always good in-fact in athletics aggressiveness is a good thing, so it’s important for adults to realize a child’s specific traits and help them find an outlet in which society can accept. And this is no easy task, in fact some adults in society are bullies themselves so it seems that finding the genetic code for bullying should maybe not be the biggest concern, maybe what genetics should highlight is the problems with our society to provide and teach people how to deal with these type of people and maybe get them interventions at an early stage to prevent future bullies.
In regards to studying genetics and their role in bullying I think it could be useful. And mentioned in the article, twin studies help prove the truth with genetics. However separating twins and placing them in two different environments is not an ethical practice and so it’d be hard to determine based on the article whether genetics or environment are responsible for a person’s bullying skills. I will say as a final note that characterizing kids based on their genetics is probably not the best way to go about signaling out if they are a bully or not. In fact this may lead to more ostracizing in the long run. However if genetics are linked to bullying and these children receive help and skills to become better then I see great use in this.
The idea of blaming either side of bullying on genetics is simply irrelevant to the cause, if no intervention comes from it. Bullies are going to be bullies and the victims are going to be the victims because, as much as we say that bullying need to stop, it is still condoned by peers. The reason children are bullied is because we are not effectively preventing it. Teaching children to treat others with respect and stand up against their friends when they are being bullies to others, rather than going along with it, could put an end to bullying. If bullies didn’t have a group of peers behind them to provide the applause, the bully would be nothing but a mean kid that no one likes to be around. Additionally, if we empower the children who are “easy targets” of bullying with tactics to enhance self-esteem and how to respond effectively when someone bullies them, the incident would be much less likely to happen again.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that hyperactivity, aggression, and impulsiveness are traits that tend to alienate children. I don’t know about the “politics” of the schoolyards now-a-days, but both my younger brother and I have ADHD (which is characterized by hyperactivity, aggression, and impulsive behavior), yet we are both social butterflies. Sure, there were bullies who targeted either of us at one point or another, but it was our reactions to these incidents that stopped the bullying from reoccurring. Personally, I was influenced by my parents preaching “the Golden Rule” to me; unless, of course, I was being bullied –in which case, I was told that I “needed to stick up for myself”.
What separates my brother and I from the kids that are bullied, is that we have enough self-confidence to stand up for ourselves as well as stand up against others. What I’m trying to get at is -- if being a “victim” of bullying is actually determined by genetics, in my eyes it would more likely result from being outspoken and/or sensitive than from being hyperactive, aggressive, or impulsive. However, blaming either the cause or the effect of bullying on genetics is simply not conducive to solving the issue at hand. By doing this, we are only justifying bullying as a part of nature. Instead of blaming one side or the other, we need to change the social norm. One aspect of the intervention needed is to assist children whose mental health may be more easily impacted by bullying, through the use of a counselor who can teach self-confidence building activities; and the other aspect needed is to teach bystander intervention to the children who witness bullying and are too afraid to say anything. When we successfully accomplish this, we will no longer need to waste money on researching what genes are to blame and will be able to focus our research efforts on more complex topics.
I agree, in part, with the article’s main message that genes do predispose people to act in certain ways. Like many comments above, however, genes cannot be an excuse for unacceptable behavior such as bullying. As discussed in the last blog article, people have free will to decide how they will act, whether it is the products they buy or how they interact with individuals. Thus, schools must cultivate a society where bullying is not tolerated and thus, change the environment to eventually change the roles of genes.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this article, I was reminded of a PBS NOVA documentary entitled “Can Science Stop Crime” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/can-science-stop-crime.html). Researchers investigated the gene, MAOA, or the “warrior gene”, to see how the gene influenced behavior. Through brain scans, what was found is that individuals possessing this “warrior gene” had less gray matter and hyperactive amygdales. Many people incorrectly believe that possessing this warrior gene inclines an individual to be more violent and aggressive. However, this is not the case; according to the documentary, 1/3 of all men possess this gene but not 1/3 of men are considered excessively aggressive, nor do all criminals possess this gene. What this documentary set out to prove is that one individual gene does not determine how someone will act. It is a combination of genetic and environmental factors that affect individuals’ behaviors. This is an important concept that must always be remembered, not just with this blog article, but also throughout this course. Genes alone do not determine an individual’s behaviors, but is influenced by a complex balance between nature and nurture.
School-aged children seem to be the most common victims of bullying. At this point in time, most kids experience bullying of some form, whether that is via social media, through physical harm, or due to the spreading of rumors. I found the article interesting as it focused on the victims of bullying, rather than the actual bully. I would be interested to learn more about the research Bovin performed with the identical and fraternal twins. Did the researcher look at how environment impacted the twins at all? I am not surprised to learn that identical twins had closer social experiences (as Identical twins are of the same gender and have an identical genetic makeup). Fraternal twins can be same sex or opposite sex and share a 50% match in DNA.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be interesting to further the research to study how anti-bully programs could impact the behavior of so-called "victims" and "bullies." Though the article shortly covers the age old question of nature vs nurture, it never seeks to explain how the two interact in this scenario. I do agree with the article in the notion that genetics play a role in ones looks, behavior, and choices. However I believe that quality of parenting, siblings, and what is taught in early childhood in regard to sharing and behavior towards one another is equally important as genetics in the bullying outcomes. Boivin made an interesting point when he stated that "The genes make it more likely that a child will behave a certain way and then have a certain experience, but it's not an absolute determinism," he said. "If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes." I agree with this statement as genes cannot be actually changed, but portrayed differently given varying environments. Though it is clear that genetic qualities such as aggression and hyperactivity can be passed down, how a child learns to cope and interact with others in early childhood can shape how his or her genes influence behavior.
I found an article I think the class would enjoy that related to this topic. It is titled "The Serotonin Transporter Gene Moderates the Development of Emotional Problems Among Children Following Bullying Victimization" and can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908591/
I do not believe that there is a specific gene that can determine whether or not a child will be a bully in school. I agree with the article in that genetics may play a role in how a person behaves or a person’s tendencies to behave in certain ways but overall I think that a child’s experiences and environment have a much bigger impact on the way a child acts towards others. I am a strong believer that children who act as bullies have issues with their own self esteem. These issues usually come from the way the child is treated at home or from being unhappy with the environment in which he or she lives. Other environmental factors such as socioeconomic status and education may also impact the way a child acts towards his or her peers. Some children are brought up in negative environments and therefore end up acting this way in school as well. I do not think that all bullies have this aggression gene because of all of the factors that account for behavior.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa in that genetics only plays a minor role in personality and therefore it is most important to prevent bullying through changing a child’s environment into a more positive one. Bullying is becoming more and more of a problem in schools today and the effects are getting worse. This article does not convince me that bullies have an aggression gene. In fact, I feel like it is trying to justify the increase in bullying by saying that there is a specific “bullying gene.” Instead of focusing all of our time on this gene, it would be more worthwhile and effective to focus on prevention programs in order to end the bullying all together.
I do not fully agree with the article that there may be a specific gene that can determine whether or not a child will become a bully or not. I agree very much with what Elinor Dyer said: the article saying it is possible that genes do play a role in how a person behaves or affect a person’s tendencies to behave in certain way, but that a child’s experiences and environment have a bigger impact on how the child acts towards others. As I was reading the article, I had a lot of skepticism about how there is a specific gene for being a bully because I also believe that children who are bullies, are bullies due to their experiences and the environment. I’m a strong believer in that a person acts the way he or she does because of the experiences he or she goes through in the environment he or she grew up in. I mean I believe that everyone is made up with a different set of genes that codes for different phenotypes and characteristics. And I believe that ultimately what causes these different characteristics to be expressed is the environment a person grew up in. Be it that it is stress, loneliness, happiness, etc. And I always did believe that those who bullied were people who either had issues with their self esteem or that the family with whom they grew up in wasn’t the best, creating a bigger impact on how they treated others.
ReplyDeleteBut I also am a little unsure of my own belief that genes are more affected by our environment after Tuesday’s lecture in class where we watched “The Ghost in your Genes. ” In this video, it basically is saying that basically all of our genes are from our ancestors, in the sense that, for example, those who are stressful all the time, are not just stressful due to the environment they grew up in, but also because their parents were stressful in their lifetime and this got passed on their children.
I don’t know if I fully agree with this at all because overall, it could just be that children growing up with stressed out parents imprinted a lot of stress on the child itself. Therefore, it can be said that children growing up with abusive and bullying parents are more likely to express those same abusive and bullying behaviors to their classmates because that’s what they learned from home.
I also agree with Lisa Moreira that genetics may play a role in our personality, but it is only a minor one. And this article didn’t change my opinion about that either. Their study with the twins wasn’t very detailed in the article and not convincing at all. I still think that environment overrides a specific gene because I think that you need a specific environment in order to activate a specific gene that will then turn on a specific characteristic in a person. There might be an "agression" gene where people are more anger and agressive all the time, but I wouldn't exactly call that a "bullying" gene or something that bullies have. Overall, I still think that what affects a person’s personality the most, is the environment that a person grew up in when they were children, during their developmental period.
Also, bullying is a problem in schools that isn't really going away. But the way that this article is kind of almost defending bullies by saying it's in a child's gene and they can't really control it isn't really helping the bullying problem. Instead of using genes as an excuse for one's bad behavior, I think people should focus on how to either prevent bullying from starting, or how to identify bullies faster and how to fix that problem after it is identified, such us how can we help this child to stop being so aggressive towards others and to stop bullying others.
I do agree with the article that it is possible for genes to play a role in bullying, but I certainly do not think that the genetic predisposition can override the environment a child is raised in. I think that genes can make us susceptible to certain personality traits, but they are either supported or refuted by our environment and the way we are raised.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that bullies are born with an aggression gene. However, even if a bully is in fact born with an aggression gene, that would be either encouraged by his environment, his home, his family, or overridden by those factors. I also think it is possible for people born without the aggression gene to end up as bullies, again depending on their environment.
Overall, in cases of personality, environment can make all the difference. The article discusses this and says that this should be a message to parents to remind them that they have a great deal of influence in what characteristics end up becoming part of their child’s personality.
After reading the article I would have to say that I do not agree with all of the statements or conclusions it has made. I do however agree with the comments above, particularly Sara Shilling’s comment about the impossibility of genes overriding a child’s environment in regard to their role in bullying. Genes determine many of our personal characteristics, but ultimately it is our environment that shapes the projections of our genes. The way that we were raised, where we grew up, in addition to other experiences as children has an impact on who we are and how we respond to the world. Genes alone do not determine our experiences. Instead, we take in our surroundings and in this environment we learn to behave, act, and communicate in certain ways.
ReplyDeleteAs Sara said, even if bullying is genetically linked, the environment can either reinforce aggressive behavior or it can suppress the behaviors associated with aggression. Personally, I think that the manner in which parents raise their children from a young age has much to do with what the child will become. If a child observes aggressive behaviors in his/her parents, I strongly believe that the child will exhibit similar behaviors at home and in the classroom. Because I feel as though aggressive behavior in a child can be manipulated, I cannot agree that aggression/bullying is hard-wired into an individual’s genes. Anti-bullying programs can be put into place at schools, which could help alleviate bullying and aggressive behaviors. I think that with such programs children with aggressive tendencies will be able to at least partially suppress their inclinations to bully, demonstrating the environmental effect on genes.
This article presents an interesting spin on the question, why do some children get bullied and why are some children bullies? The article can be a bit misleading at first by making it seem as if the research suggests that a child’s genes determine whether or not he or she will be prone to bullying. However, at the end of the article there is an important quote from one of the researchers that says, “the genes make it more likely that a child will behave a certain way and then have a certain experience, but it’s not an absolute determinism, he said. If your change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes”. This shows that it is not genes that solely determine a child’s likelihood of being bullied or doing the bullying; rather it is a delicate balance of nature versus nurture.
ReplyDeleteThe nature versus nurture debate has been around for decades, so it is hard to say that a person’s genes take a main role in bullying. Boivin talks about a person’s genes being predisposed to impulsiveness and aggression. Additionally, physical appearance is also mentioned. Perhaps it can be said that there are genetic components in everyone that could make him or her into a bully. Therefore, it is more important from a nurture point of view. In my opinion, the way a child is raised and the experiences a child is exposed to contribute more to the likelihood of a child being bullied or bullying other children. In a way, I feel like by blaming a person’s genes is a scapegoat for allowing people to blame their DNA for the reason they bullied others.
As we discussed in class, the environment can influence how genes are expressed, so I definitely think that there is a gene-environment relationship. From this article, I don’t know if I am really convinced as to what role genes play when it comes to social interactions. Nevertheless, of the two, (genes or environment) the environment has a bigger impact and most likely overrides the other. I am not sure what makes someone a bully and what makes someone else a victim, but the environment might explain part of it. The experiences you live tend to shape your views and attitudes. So perhaps, bullies tend to live more aggressive experiences. They may live in an environment where they constantly experience yelling and fighting, so to them that is normal. Therefore, they go out and yell and fight with other people, since to them, there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, a victim of bullying may live in a passive environment and not really know how to deal with aggressions. So, when someone bullies them they do not stand up for themselves and keep getting bullied.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if genetics has a role in it at all. I don’t think that bullies have an “aggression” gene, but maybe more research can be done to determine what genetic similarities bullies have versus the genetic similarities among victims of bullying. It can be possible that genes are a risk factor for bullying since it’s already a factor for so many other things. But, if it is, I agree with what the article said, genes do not determine whether a person is going to be a bully or not, it just increases the likelihood of it happening.
While certain personality traits can be genetic, I believe bullying is a learned characteristic. Someone may be born with a predisposition to genetic mutations, obesity, physical traits, substance abuse issues, etc. You may be able to work to change certain characteristics, such as obesity, but it is coded in your DNA for you to be a certain way. In life we all have to make choices. Some people may be better at dealing with their anger or expressing emotions but bullying is a choice. A bully actively chooses to victimize another and has the power to stop. If we can teach kids to not bully by showing them a better way to release their inner emotions it would be more beneficial than just saying they are predisposed to being a bully. Genes do have an impact on one’s personality but we are all responsible for how we behave towards others.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Just because someone is predisposed to certain behaviors doesn't mean they have to be that way for the rest of their life. They can be taught to behave differently/change. During younger ages, a child's predisposition to certain behaviors is more easily visible. However, as they age and go through schooling, they learn the proper way to behave towards others and in society, thus learning how to control issues such as their emotions, etc.
DeleteThe most interesting aspect of this article are how the findings say that there is genetic linkages to ‘getting’ bullied as appose to ‘being’ bullied; a more conventional idea. In the article it states, “The behaviors that most often lead to exclusion and victimization in the classroom or schoolyard have their roots in a student’s genes.” So the article seeks out to prove that there is a biological reason that makes students what to specifically attack and bully victims that are caused by the victims own genes?
ReplyDeleteFirst, the ethics of this study are very much something to be argued. A thought that comes to my mind when reading this study is Nazi Germany. In many instances the Nazi’s used genes and “biological research” to argue their claims of the superior race and the atrocious actions during the holocaust. If there is indeed a genetic mutation that may make some children different than others I do not think in any way. Shape, or form this will cause others to biologically feel the need to bully them. For example, autism can be caused by a genetic mutation leading to behavioral problems with the child, and ostracism by others. However this ostracism and judgment is not a biological action, it is primarily a social problem. We judge others, or ostracize them in many cases because their behavior is unknown to us, not because our genes tell us to. Even the study in the article involving the two twins does not seem accurate or sufficient enough to back the theory. It seems almost obvious to say that twins have similar peer interactions compared to fraternal twins; they have far more similar genes and personality thus a classmate would perceive them the same way. Genes are something that influence behavior, however the environment is a much stronger factor.
Another point made in the article says that social experiences also play a part in the way a child is treated. This is completely true, however does not support the theory that children are born to be bullied. There is not a gene that can be extracted that will stop others from bullying you. I think the last statement towards the end of the article sums up the ethical insensitivity of this study, it states “parents should try to nip the issue in the butt in the child’s earlier years.” I do not think that bullying is associated with genes and there is no way to tell, or forewarn, whether someone will be bullied unless there are social cues which give evidence of such. In the battle of nature vs. nurture I think nurture definitely wins the war as the main reason behind bullying. The person who is bullied is only a victim and has no control over avoiding that circumstance
I personally think that genes and the environment are always interacting. I am skeptical about the example in the research about the fraternal and identical twins. Twins are interesting to study because they are the same ages and are brought up largely in the same way regardless of whether or not they are fraternal or paternal. They are also likely to influence each other because they live in similar environmental exposures. Additionally they typically spend a great deal of time influencing each other because they are the same ages. It is interesting that the identical twins were more likely to have similar social experiences. One theory that might explain this is that identical twins look the same and, therefore, may identify more with their sibling. They may even feel the need to act similar. This is a trait that fraternal twins might not have.
ReplyDeleteOverall I agree with the opinion in the article that genes provide a baseline for characteristics to develop later on. It would be naive to say that genes don’t play any role in behavior traits such as aggression. However, there is no “absolute determinism.”
Although I agree that there may be some genetic link to being bullied, I believe it is a bit far-fetched to basically say that some people are genetically predisposed to be bullied. It makes it seem as if the blame is being taken away from bullies, and blaming it on the genes, saying that because someone was born with these characteristics, they were simply meant to be bullied. As several others have mentioned before me, it just seems as if environment plays a much bigger role in how we perceive certain phenotypes and personalities. I’m not sure if the study had mentioned placing the identical twins in different environments. That might have shown different outcomes. I personally know that bullying perceptions often changed due to different environments. When I was in middle school, I remember the child that was often picked on was quieter and spent majority of his/her time being alone and studying. However, in high school, those students who possessed many of those characteristics were rarely tormented and often had many friends. Then again, that could just be an age thing.
ReplyDeleteI found another article linking bullying to actual genetic changes in the victims:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bullying-change-victims-dna-crippling-gene-regulates-mood/story?id=18027365
A lot of it reminded me of what we went over in Tuesday’s class, about how the experiences of our ancestors are affecting us today. People who were bullied showed genetic changes which in turn, got passed on to their children, making them genetically predisposed to not being able to stand up for themselves. In this instance, I feel like genetic changes can predict whether a person will be bullied or not, because their genes are shaped by their parent’s and grandparent’s experiences, not because they were just born that way.
Bullying has always been a problem for kids in the school yard, but I think that today’s age has taken bullying to a whole new level. The use of cyber bullying and violence has become much more of an issue and I do not think that we can excuse bullies based on their genetics. I think that our society acts as an awful influence on young children. The role models of our society fail to act as positive role models, and the music, video games, movies, and television that kids are exposed to also serves as a negative influence. I do agree that bullies tend to have problematic genes, but it is important for parents to step in and teach their children how to respect others. As the article states “genes make it more likely that a child will behave a certain way and then have a certain experience, but it's not an absolute determinism. If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes." I fully support this statement. I think if children are raised in a good environment then the genes that would cause them to bully others will dissipate.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra Kramer
ReplyDeleteIn this article about grade school bullying, it was hypothesized that part of the reason for bullying is genetics. Although environment plays a role in childhood behavior, researchers are trying to prove that genetics plays a key role in determining who a victim of bullying will be, and how their fellow classmates will view them. I would have to agree with what many of my classmates have reacted to this article, feeling that genetics is not a valid reason at all for bullying.
Boivin states that “genetics also play a role in personal appearance…acknowledging that such physical characteristics also factor into a child's social experience.” In my opinion, this is no excuse for bullying. Of course your genetics play a role in your personal appearances, that’s what diversity is. Everyone is a mixture of their biological mother and father, so everyone is going to look different. Furthermore, grade school is a major period in a child’s life where he or she learns about different looks, personalities, and character traits. This is the time in kids’ lives where they should learn about how to treat people who are different from them and what reactions are socially okay or not. Parents should be teaching their kids that bullying is not right. Environmental surroundings play a huge role in shaping how a kid treats other people. The biggest influence in this is what teachers and parents teach and show the child about treating others.
Boivin also states that "if you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes." I interpret this to mean that it isn’t about the genes, but about the environment, so I don’t think that there is much convincing evidence that genes are a legitimate reason for bullying.
In conclusion, we should not be looking at genetics as an excuse for bullying kids, but focus on eliminating bullying through teaching kids how to treat their classmates with respect. If we start implementing “good” behavior now, these lifestyle habits will stay with them throughout their lives, hopefully decreasing the amount of bullying and exclusion, and hopefully passing on good treatment of others to their children.
I was not convinced by this article. I feel like that study was not the best way to determine if genes really play a significant role in determining if you become a bully/are the victim of bullying. To address the issue of the way this study was conducted… Boivin suggested later in the article that looks play a role in the way children are treated. The way I see it is that identical twins may have been treated similar because as a kid, you don’t see twins as two completely separate people all the time, you automatically associate them with each other because they are identical. In the case of the fraternal twins, kids are more likely to treat them as two completely independent individuals because they are not identical. Genetics clearly play a role here but not with personality, with looks.
ReplyDeleteLike many of my classmates have stated, genes most likely do have an impact on your personality but environmental factors still must be considered. Though Boivin very briefly suggests that environment has an impact as well, it seems as though he feels that genetics are more important. I find that interesting because you cannot simply “nip the issues in the bud” if they have been inherited. Is he contradicting his findings by suggesting a simple fix by changing your child’s environment at an early age to stop the bullying? Yes. If genetics played a heavy role in determining bullying, it would not be possible to just change their behavior towards other kids- you’d have to alter their genes.
I think that genes do play a role in personality but I don’t think that this study proves this. I also don’t see how this information is necessarily relevant. Trying to prove that bullying is genetically determined is not going to help solve the bullying problem in schools. Just because something might be in your genetic makeup does not mean you are not accountable for your actions. I agree with what Max said about people not wanting to be accountable for what they do. Just because you are predisposed to a certain thing does not mean it’s okay. I don’t think that knowing if your child is predisposed to being a bully/bullied is helpful. I also agree with Anthony’s statement that if a “genetic bully” is raised to respect others, they will not bully because they know how people should be treated. I think that the way a child is raised is much more important than the personality they have inherited in their genes.
Another note- have you ever noticed that when one person starts bullying or making fun of someone others join in? Isn’t that a learned behavior? All of those kids don’t have a bullying gene.
This article is troubling for quite a few reasons. One of the first things that came to mind is the validity of the study; it appears that the evaluation of these experiences could be entirely subjective and there is a lot of potential for confounding variables.
ReplyDeleteNature vs. nurture is an ongoing argument and personally I think the environment in which we are fostered greatly outweighs the consequences of our genetic material. Yes, some children are naturally more aggressive but that could potentially be related to a number of different factors, it could be related to maternal health and stress while the baby was still in vitro for all we know. However, behavioral interventions and good parenting can curb this tendency before such "bullying" were to ever occur.
Society cannot blame its problems on genetics. There are a lot of things in children's environments today that were not accessible in previous generations. For example, I think a toddler playing with an ipad is a gross display of over-stimulation which may eventually produce a disgruntled school age child. However, the effects of actions such as these remain to be seen as these innovations are still too new. I do think with perseverant parenting and fostering values such as respect for others and kindness can subvert a genetic predisposition. Human behavior is of course a mixture of genetics and environment, but I do believe the latter takes on a greater role. Moreover, I believe genes are more malleable than we would like to believe.
As far as a bullying gene is concerned, in my opinion that does not exist. Generally we only search for a bullying gene in people who we consider bullies. What if, we all have the same genetic predisposition but it is environmental factors that either propel or inhibit its expression? The same situation has been studied in adulterous men. http://www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=184703#.UQq3qxxXX4Y To be quite blunt, I just dont buy it. We are a society that is too obsessed with our own autonomy to believe that we could simply be the object of some genetic puppeteer. This, to me, is just a lazy excuse for bad behavior.
With my understanding of the study’s findings – that the researchers in this article have found that genetic factors may underlie certain tendencies to behave in certain ways (and naturally, certain behaviors elicit certain responses from other individuals) – I think that the results from the study are overstated and undermine the complexity of bullying.
ReplyDeleteAs other students have said, in the ever-continuing nature-versus-nurture debate, a lot of people have reached somewhat of an agreement: both nature and nurture are influential – particularly as they interact with each other – in affecting humans. I do not think that the study does a good job of observing the effects of genes (through subjective self-reports and reports). A lot of the findings may be falsely attributed to genetics, such as the observations made of identical twins.
While it is correct to note that environmental interventions can be helpful in stopping bullying, it might not be effective in this situation in the way that the researchers speculate it does (that an environmental intervention alleviates bullying because of the impact it has on genes).
Additionally, bullying is only one behavior that these researchers have chosen to look at – what about seeing how individual’s genetics (and tendencies for behaviors) cause others to flirt with them, honk at them in traffic, or play pranks on them?
The study fails to take the role of the bully into account. It is not enough to simply focus on the bullied’s genes and behaviors – you would also need to consider the genes and behaviors of the bully (as well as the environment they grew up in/live in, past history, etc). By saying “we know that it's behaviour that drives the peer difficulties", the lead researcher Boivin completely undermines the complexity of bullying.
Many comments towards the end of the article criticize the findings as “blaming the victim”. While that was hopefully (!) not the intent of the researchers or the study, I agree to some extent with those who have left comments and think that the study’s findings places an inappropriate amount of responsibility on individuals who are bullied.
Jamie Shaw
ReplyDeleteAs most of my classmates have brought up so far on this feed, this is a classic example of nature vs nurture. However, while that may be what is trying to be brought up in this article, I agree with what others have brought up with their comments. This is quite extreme, and frankly a little ridiculous. Of course we know that our genetics makes up our traits, which contribute to our personality. But our actions are our conscious carrying-out of our personality, which does not always have to be the case. We as humans have higher cognitive processes to deliberate, and have self control, and decide if we want to take a certain action, weigh the pros and cons. And this deliberation (and the following outcome/decision) is learned from our experiences and what we have been taught. We have the ability to go against our genetic predispositions. If we believe otherwise, and focus on using the field of genetics to help explain a social problem, we are both wasting resources and being naive about a serious problem that needs to be addressed socially, not medically. Above me it has already been brought up, but I couldn't agree more that this is similar to obesity, alcoholism etc, and people are looking for a way out of a serious problem; looking for a way so the blame doesn't fall on their shoulders.
I think this article is just another excuse to blame genetics for our societal problems. The majority of the piece was just repeating how behaviors effect peer interactions without any real evidence to prove their point. The only study mentioned involved 800 pairs of identical and fraternal twins and how their peers perceived them. This is very subjective because it is highly probable that the peers were biased to answer in a specific way in order to fit in. The results only showed that identical twins were more likely to have similar social experiences than fraternal twins which could have been due to many other factors, such as their environment.
ReplyDeleteLike many people who have already responded have said, the way an individual reacts to a situation is based on nature and nurture. The article even ends by claiming that “genes will make it more likely a child will behave a certain way BUT it’s not absolute determinism-if you change the environment by intervening, then you change the role of the genes”. In a blog written by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, she claims that genetics is a very convenient scapegoat for behaviors and illnesses because it is something we are born with and we can’t do anything about it at the moment (http://beyondmeds.com/2011/04/25/genetics/ ).Heredity can definitely predispose people to certain conditions, but it is environmental factors, such as lifestyle, that determine the outcome of such predispositions. (http://naturalbias.com/stop-blaming-genetics-for-your-health-problems/).
Instead of blaming genetics for our problems we should focus the real problems such as the family issues or personal history that may have contributed to the bully becoming a bully. Another factor is exposures that these bullies are exposed to such as violence and cultural causes that have allowed the child to think that bullying is acceptable. Education, early intervention, and a support group are key in preventing bullying from continuing. By accepting our faults instead of blaming it on genetics, we can work to protect our future generations from bullying.
Reading through the responses that have been posted already, I find myself agreeing with what many of them are saying. As we all know, genes are not sole determinants, since many factors, including social, behavioral, and environmental, play a role in shaping different aspects of ourselves. Though the science may support the existence of an aggression gene or bully gene, it seems almost off topic to discuss such an idea since it is not like finding a gene that predisposes children to be bullies will justify them being so.
ReplyDeleteThis logic can be applied to other situations, where perhaps, for example, there is a gene that predisposes a person to lack sympathy, and therefore causes them to become mass murderers. Even if this were true, it is not as if the defense would be that it was due to the person's genetics that led them to kill people. Regardless of it being true or not, the person would still be punished by the law for their actions.
Same could be said with the aggression gene and bullies. However, on the bright side, continuing research on this topic is never a bad thing, since good things could come out of this. For instance, if at some point in the future, we are able to clearly identify the aggression gene early on during infancy, then parents can take preventative measures to make sure that the child's upbringing prevents that child from becoming a bully, since once again, nurturing elements such as social, behavioral, and environmental factors play just as an important role in the personality of a child as does the child's genes. Therefore, it is imperative to realize that though the research and findings are important in their own right, that we do not lose sight and let this become some kind of scape goat to justify the terrible actions of past, current, and future bullies.
I do believe that one's genetic make-up determines a large amount about the persons physical, psychological, and emotional being. This article looks at a person holistically. Everything in the body is connected, and a person only acts according to the way they were created. The article acknowledges that a child's DNA can affect certain aspects of his or her personality, character traits, thoughts, and actions in a school setting specifically. It has been studied that people who have more symmetrical facial features are "better looking", and good looking people tend to be more popular in schools. It has also been studied that those "better looking" people have more of a tendency to get involved in physically, psychologically, and emotionally damaging behavior. This behavior or exposure to inappropriate behavior can lead to negative treatment towards others and bullying.
ReplyDeleteYes, while I believe we are inherently made up a certain way with DNA, this article neglects to talk about that the affects of the environment on a child's growth, personality, social decisions, character traits, preferences, etc. How can we find a balance between acknowledging both one's genetic make-up as well as the physical environment he or she grew up in? In modern psychology, we discuss the topic of nature vs. nurture. Our experiences help shape us into who we are. Is the way I am now due to my DNA, or is it due to the experiences and environment I have been exposed to?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteOur genes define many of our character traits. Our behavior however is not solely defined by our genes and is jointly determined by the interaction of heredity and environment. The degree and nature of our behavior’s hereditary basis is constantly being studied. The validity of the conclusion of this particular study is concerning seeing as many variables make us who we are and influence how we behave.
Our genes influence the type of environment to which we are exposed. The genes that we inherit from our parents make us more likely to put ourselves in certain situations. Our genes also affect our sensitivity and reaction to a given environment. However, alone our genes do not define whether or not we are a bully or a victim. I believe that the environment impacts the aggressive nature of children as much as our genes do. The experiences a child has influences the type of personality traits and behavior that they display. Today, association studies have provided little evidence of a significant role of one or any single gene in affecting our reactions such as aggression, anxiety or stress. Recent studies have emphasized the necessity of examining gene by environmental interactions. http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0022405.html
The environment in which we are raised significantly impacts the types of environments and behaviors were are likely to engage in. Children and adolescents seek out environment they find comfortable and stimulating. Such environments usually correlate with the type of environment they are used to at home. Research has shown that environments such as excessive use of video games have increased anger and hostile feelings in children while interacting with peers. http://www.pamf.org/preteen/parents/violentvideogames.html There are environmental factors such as this that affect aggressive behavior when in combination with the genes we inherit. Abusive and violent homes have also been shown to correlate with aggressive behavior in children.
I agree with my classmates that this article seems to take this interaction too far. I also agree that it seems as though the article is trying to give a clear cut, simple explanation for the causes of bullying. I do believe that there are genetic predispositions associated with bullying but I also think environment plays a major role. These genes may cause a child to display bully type behavior but it takes certain environmental stimuli to activate that gene. To me this article seems to be looking for a clear definition of why a child is a bully or a victim. However, I believe it is a lot more complex of an interaction between genes and environment that causes aggressive behavior.
This article brings up the debate of nature vs nuture. It argues that our genes are the main reason a person becomes a bully. I believe that although genes do play a role in one’s behavior the enviorment cannot be ignored in situations like bullying. There are instances when one’s genes does not dictate how one behaves. For example children of alcoholics have the increased probability to become alcoholics themsevles because of their genes but not all become alcoholics. Some see the behaviors of their parents and realize they do not want to live like that and behave differently by chosing not to drink.
ReplyDeleteI think that parents play a major role in how their children behave. Parents are their childrens first role models. Children are very impressionable and copy things that they see or hear from others. I think parents have a responsibility to teach their children manners, morals and appropriate behavior. I think that to stopping bullying is to teach at any early age that you should treat others the way you would wnat to be treated. At the same time a child can be taught to be kind to their peers, but there will always be a few who will still bully others.
I think the environment can affect only certain genes. While someone’s surroundings can’t change physical characteristics such as eye color, I think that their surroundings can change inherited personality traits. Personality traits include being mean or nice, introverted or extroverted, etc. As for being a bully, I believe that is more of a behavior rather than a personality trait. However, the traits of a bully, such as aggression is an inheritable gene. It doesn’t mean that everyone with an “aggression” gene will become a bully though. Moreover, I believe that being a bully results from underlying emotional factors due to a negative environment. The a person with the combination of having an “aggression” gene and being exposed to a negative environment will more likely become a bully versus someone without the “aggression” gene. On the other hand, someone with an “aggression” gene could turn out to be the nicest person you know if they were brought up in a loving environment. Therefore, genes and environment can override each other, depending on how great an environment’s influence is.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Boivin in the article: "The genes make it more likely that a child will behave a certain way and then have a certain experience, but it's not an absolute determinism," he said. "If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes."
Finally, I’d like to add that this subject is relatable to the Childhood Obesity presentation today, which focused on how dramatic someone’s environment and lifestyle can change their health. While obesity may be an inheritable trait and it may be harder for someone with the gene to be healthy, it isn’t something that they can’t do by eating right and being active.
While I acknowledge that our genetic makeup does have a role in shaping our behavior, this article did not at all convince me that it overrides the influence of the environment. Reducing behaviors that make people more susceptible to bullying to our genes is much too simplistic and shifts the blame to the victim. Similarly, aggressive behaviors exhibited by bullies should not be blamed on their genes because it implies that their behavior is beyond their control and hardwired into them, when in reality their situation at home with their parents may have more of an influence on how they interact with others at school.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the researcher Michael Boivin that behavior drives peer difficulties; however, I disagree with the idea that genes are more responsible for influencing the way we act than the environment in which we are raised. I would argue for the more balanced viewpoint stated at the end of the article: "The genes make it more likely that a child will behave a certain way and then have a certain experience, but it's not an absolute determinism," he said. "If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes."
Our behavior is the result of a gene-environment interaction, and I don't think that our genetic makeup makes either bullying or being bullied inevitable. Ultimately I think that genes play a minor role in shaping behavior as compared to environmental factors such as parenting, our peer group, and socioeconomic status.
Vicky makes a good point about how this subjects connects to the presentation on childhood obesity last night. Our genes and environment work together to shape many aspects of ourselves individually and as a population. Sometimes one overrides the other, and in this case, the environment has more say in our behavior that leads to either aggression or victimization.
I got a chuckle when I saw Connor’s comment saying how the article was “grasping at straws.” I agree with his statement because the article only has input from one researcher, Michel Boivin. Boivin explains his study of identical twins, and their similar peer experiences compared to that of fraternal twins. The similarities could be explained because the twins live in the same home environment. Identical twins are also the same gender, which can create more competition between the siblings that may contribute to higher bullying in schools. Boivin never states if the fraternal twins studied were the same sex or opposite sex. This could potentially put a big hole in his theory because male and female interactions are very different.
ReplyDeleteBullying is not a gene comparable to that of eye color or intellect. It is a trait that is strictly inherited from your environment. Just the other day we learned in my Developmental Psychology class the link between depression and abuse as a child. If a child had low serotonin and lived an abusive environment than their chances for depression skyrocketed. So this was a combination of genes and environment. In the case of bullying, there is no chemical or biological basis behind bullying.
To be more legitimate I would like to see more biological evidence to this claim. It seems that Boivin purely did an observational study, which can be susceptible to many different types of biases. Until I see hard evidence, I feel that bullying stems from a child’s interactions with parents, family, other children, and their love affair with violent TV and video games.
Although I agree that genetics can definitely play a role in determining our behaviors, I believe that this article focuses too much on changing the personalities and tendencies of the people getting bullied. Although there are stereotypical behaviors that often cause someone to get bullied, these behaviors would not have this effect without the the child living in an environment with these social norms. In a sense, I feel like this article is blaming the bullied children for why they are getting bullied. Instead of applying an intervention to change the children who have traits that are likely to cause them to get bullied, I believe more emphasis should be put on changing the mindset of the bullies themselves.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that an "aggression" gene could exist within bullies, but I still feel that environmental factors play a larger role than genetic ones in this case. For one, if bullies have an aggressive gene, they are going to be aggressive regardless of the victim's personality traits. For this reason alone I don't believe that recognizing characteristics that this study deems to be the reason why children are bullied is the correct solution. These characteristics incite bullying because these traits are what society has considered normal traits for bully victims to have over many generations.
The problem I found with the information presented by the researchers in this article is that they only observed the interaction identical and fraternal twins had with their classmates. Being the same age and in the same classroom is limiting whom the children are going to interact with and how they are going to be treated. Identical twins are inclined to be treated the same because of their looks, which sounds wrong but children aren’t able to understand that although people look the same does not mean they should be treated the same. So the fact that they were treated the same by their peers is not surprising. Also, twins are more likely to stay together and interact as a pair anyways, thus once again limiting how they are treated by their peers. If it were specified that the twins were in separate classrooms and then treated the same I would find the information more interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe article is essentially bringing up the old “nature vs. nurture” argument. It claims that children have certain behavioral predispositions based upon their genetic makeup. However, there are many factors determined by genes that don’t pan out and it does not matter whether you treat it or not. Some people are more likely to develop certain cancers based on their genes and yet it is not a guarantee that this will occur at some point in their lives. It is a matter of chance of whether or not they will develop the disease, whether they adopt certain lifestyle choices or not. This is not to say that genes do not play a defining role in a person’s life. However, genes do not determine everything in a person’s life.
Whether or not a child become’s a bully has nothing to do with their genes. I do not believe there is an “aggression” gene. The article even states that the genes would not be absolute determinants. This is just giving people an excuse to act in a certain way. This could lead to a very slippery slope of what people are accountable for and what they are not. If someone has a genetic marker that says they are more likely to be violent are they not responsible for their actions?
I think that genetics definitely plays a role in who gets bullied. The strong have always liked to prey on the weak. The “weak,” so to say, usually don’t have the best genes. Having some disfigurement, or mar, or even something limiting like autism or down syndrome, can often cast people out solely based on genetics. However the article’s main focus was on environment, where sets of twins were observed to see how peers perceived them in different environments. Every environment is different. In small towns, some traits may be more accepted versus larger towns where these same traits might be unacceptable. I think that in certain circumstances the interaction between genes and the environment do overlap, but I feel like it really depends on the culture and society inhabiting the environment.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentioned that personality traits like hyperactivity often cause children to feel alienated from the rest of their class. I think that hyperactivity does not cause people to be ostracized. I think instead, it is the school system that often causes children with hyperactivity issues to feel marginalized because their teachers are unwittingly segregating these children. These children are often made the example of how to not act in the classroom setting.
Bullying, as many of my classmates have previously stated, has become a huge issue that consistently shows up in the media. I think that bullying has more to do with the environment, more so than it does with genetics. As I said before, the strong usually have better genes that make transitioning into society’s rules easier. However, just because you have good genes doesn’t mean there is a one hundred percent guarantee that you will never get bullied. I don’t think that bullies are born with the aggression gene because of this. I think bullies learn to be bullies over time either because they were once bullied, or just because they surround themselves by bullies. I feel like there is always some sort of environmental reasoning that explains why bullies bully versus genes playing a significant role in the process.
http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/specialassignment/99357034.html
I found another study on twins that was done at Duke University. It looked at how one twin may be bullied more than the other. This, again, has to do more with environmental issues versus genetic ones. Victims of bullying become “introverted” because they feel that they can’t speak up. They fear that their bullying will not only ensue, but also become increasingly worse. Twins share virtually the same genetic makeup, with only some personality traits differing here and there. One twin may be perceived as better than the other because they may be more outgoing and social. This again proves the fact that society’s rules teach kids to bully, where those who last the longest in the environment are the ones that will survive and stay on top.
It is interesting to imagine that genetics might play a role in bullying. However, I think that the article does not provide enough proof that there is actually a link between the two. One study cannot validate that genetics plays a role in bullying. More studies need to be done. I believe that bullying is a result of interactions with your peers. How you handle those interactions is what leads to bullying. For example, imagine a kindergartener with an above average reading level. This kid would be more likely to bully his or her peers because he is "smarter" than them. Does that mean that genetics had anything to do with it? No. Maybe the kid's parents sent him or her to a private tutor, so the kid had more practice reading than the other students. On the other side of things, the kid could be more susceptible to be bullied because he is the smartest one in the class and the other kids resent him for that. If you wanted to study whether genetics plays a role in bullying, you should investigate the parents of the child to see if they had any problems with bullying growing up and compare that to the experiences of their children. For the most part, I believe that bullying is a result of social interactions and how children respond to their every day experiences. Bullying is a result of not fitting in or making others feel insignificant so that you feel like you fit in. If bullying had something to do with genetics, I would be surprised. Genes shape who you are. How comfortable you feel in your own skin is what I believe to be the main cause of bullying. Because if you don't have respect for yourself, why would you have respect for anyone else?
ReplyDeleteJonathan Greenbaum
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that genetics plays a big role on personal and physical traits, I do not believe this is an acceptable explanation for bullying. I believe that there are certain markers in the genome that make us more predisposed to aggression, but at the same time I believe that gene expression is heavily influenced by our surroundings. In my opinion, the environment we live in and the experiences that we accumulate are much more of a driving force in bullying than a genetic trait. The article stated that, “If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes.” This supports my belief that our social environment can override predispositions to have certain personality traits.
Although the article makes many valid points, it may be foolish to think that a social problem like bullying can have genetic solutions. It may be more useful to focus on the habits and behaviors that lead to the expression of bullying. Behaviors are definitely passed from parents to children, but it is difficult to determine the extent to which aggression is attributed to the genome.
After reading this article, I cannot fully agree with the assumption that a specific gene determines if the child will become a bully or not. To say a persons genes can make them out to be a bully is a little far fetched in my opinion. However, I do not disagree with the fact that genetics can play a role in a persons behavior, I just do not agree with the assumption that genetics is the main underlying reason to why a person acts the way they do.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the environment is the key aspect that plays the major role when it comes to bullying. Whether that be socioeconomic problems with our society today, which entail intense and aggressive movies, TV shows, and even video games that portrays violence and cruelty being accepted. If such matters are shown in the public eye to be “accepted” then you have children who believe that it too can be accepted at school. You also have the way the child’s lifestyle is back at home whether that is bad parenting, problems around the house, parents fighting etc. carries off to the child’s behavior. Or even if the experiences that child encounters are only poor ones that has a huge impact and influence on how they treat and interact with other kids. Therefore it is the parent’s job to be better role models for their children by teaching them manners, being respectful, and knowing good behavior vs. bad behavior. Parents and even schools can teach and emphasize the importance of the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Teach the children young about the importance of goodness and kindness to hopefully decrease the chances for bullying to occur.
I do agree that genes play a significant role in the development of personality and interaction. I don't think that it is the sole reason that some individuals become bullies and others victims. The article seems to focus on the genetic make-up of those who are victimized by bullies as the main underlying factor for them being ostracized. I have to disagree and say that the issue surrounding bullying has many more factors to take into account.
ReplyDeleteThe environment that a child is exposed to has a major impact as well. It could have to do with the type of neighborhood they grew up in, the type of relationships and interactions they have in the household, the school they go to, and many of social and environmental factors that key in to this issue and the development of bullies.
I don't think there is a single gene that codes for bullies or victims. I believe there could be a combination of genetic makeup that make some people more susceptible than others to certain personality traits and actions but I don't think it is what causes the issue of bullying.
I think that also this article may have been skewed in interpretation. Correlation to certain personality traits can't be deemed the causation for bullies or victims. The influences on these social roles in schools are deeply affected by relationships, media, education, and personal difficulties.
This was an interesting article on the relationship between genes and personality traits but I think that the article was missing some key information about other factors that need to be properly addressed to resolve this issue
I think this is another example of findings that should be taken with a grain of salt. The researchers made an incredible study design - using a large sample of fraternal/identical twins and following them over a long period of time. I also do think that genetics amazingly play a factor in our social interactions - it's incredible that GATACTACCAG can translate into a personality trait and thus life experiences. But the researchers should be (and I think were) wary about the claim that genetic makeup = social experience. The ongoing debate is of course nature versus nurture. Is it our genes that make us who we are or is it our upbringing and our surroundings? The answer is not completely understood, but all signs point to a combination of the two. We are not born with a "clean slate" but rather a slate with a certain propensity for being filled. The researchers understood this concept and used couched terms like "partial" and "underlying".
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was probably not the researchers intention, the sensationalization of this peer-reviewed article is taking away from the real issue at hand: that bullying still exists. I haven't read the article itself, but I have a feeling that it does not put any blame on the victims of bullying for having the "wrong" genes, but rather unbiasedly publishes their results. The article was written in a way that puts emphasis on the genetic makeup of the victims, not the social environment of the bullies, as should be the focus. If it was me, I'd have focused on the nurture of the bullies instead of the nature of the victims. The "aggression gene" might exist, but I think that good parenting and a positive environment is enough to trump it.
There are many factors, in addition to bullying, that are questionable to whether or not genes play a role. Other examples of traits could be serial killers or people with mental disorders that are believed to have been shaped by experience (PTSD, depression). This opens up many arguments that could be made to differentiate bullying and place it in its own category. However, the research being done would also have to differentiate bullying from other traits that contribute to personality.
ReplyDeleteIt is genetic factors along with experience that dictate personality. What if a child whose parents are bullies ends up being the one getting bullied? It can be argued that it is situational and depends on circumstance. The method researchers took by evaluating the ways classmates perceived subjects could be modified by also getting history of the subject. In addition to the opinion of peers, we should also get in the heads of subjects to get more of an inside idea on their personalities and what shaped them. The similarity between the personality of identical twins is much different from the similarity between the personality of parents and their children. For that reason, conclusions should be made regarding each circumstance, not equating the two.
I believe that genetics and environmental exposures are both equally influential in the behavior of children. Some individuals may have a gene that is more expressive than others or more genetically inclined to behave/respond in a certain way (seclude themselves, lash out, etc.) when presented with a certain situation. What I'm trying to get at, is that everyone might have a gene for a certain trait, but some individuals genes might be stronger than others, so when in a chaotic environment, etc., some individuals may be unable to control their urge to erupt in response, while others may be able to have control over their urge to respond in a certain way. This is why I feel as though bullies may be slightly more inclined to behave in a certain way. I believe that the genes represent an instinctual response that occurs naturally, but children can be taught that their behavior is wrong. A child may behave without thinking, and their instinctual behavior may tend to be that of a bully, but once they are made aware of the fact that their behavior is unacceptable, they will learn to control that innate desire to respond in a hurtful manner. I remember hearing something on television about a warrior gene that was present in people with anger/rage issues; they had genetic testing done, and all of the individuals with anger problems had the gene, so I am slightly more inclined to believe that bullies are some how genetically inclined to behave in a certain manner. However, I am still not sure whether or not it depends on if a gene is present or not present OR if it depends on whether a gene is strongly or weakly expressed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thewarriorgene.com/
This link is awesome! I didn't even know we could check to see if roughness and aggression are in our DNA..
DeleteAnthony Ciccone
ReplyDeleteI agree with many students, Maysam Homsi in particular, that social interactions and setting play a huge role in bullying. In the article it did mention the social interactions and setting influence bullying in some ways. With that said, I think that this article is very controversial. It seems as if the author is trying to blame the bullying on the victims genetic makeup, rather then the fault of the bully. This could create and stir up a lot of controversy among parents whose children were bullied. How about the extreme case of when kids are getting bullied and they go on to commit suicide? I don’t think that it would be ethical to now tell the child’s parents that it was your child’s genetic makeup that caused him to get bullied. This takes all the blame off of the bully who is actually responsibility for these cruel acts. The bully who inevitably carries out the mean act is the one who should get all the blame. Do the bullies not get punished anymore because it is not their fault? Is it the not the bullies fault that they are bulling their peers? I don’t see how you can say that genes are linked to being the victim of bullying but are not linked to the bully.
I don’t think this would be the correct route to stop bullying. The best way to stop bullying is having programs, classes and activities that educate children on the effects of bullying and how to stand up to a bully. Everyone in their lifetime will be bullied for some reason or another, so educating young children on ways to walk away from the situation would be very beneficial. I would need to see more evidence and studies done in order for me to consider this as a reasonable theory.
I do believe that the gene-environment interaction is not balanced. Environment moderates the genetic influence, which is ultimately the reason that our lives and interactions are not solely predetermined by out genetic material. That being said the two are hard to separate. An excellent example of this interaction is the genetic predisposition towards alcohol abuse: children of alcoholics are much more vulnerable to alcoholism. However if these inherited factors were the sole determinant there would be no explanation for the alcoholics who lacked the inherited factors or for those with the factors do did not become alcoholics. Neither genetics, nor environment exist in a vacuum and as such, each is subject to the influence of the other (Blum et al., 1990). Clearly genes can override environmental influence and alternately environment can override inherited factors.
ReplyDeleteBully behavior is thing to objectively quantify. Is it a derivative of temperament? Is it a learned behavior? Can it be related to sleep deprivation, ADHD, or other biological bases? My sister has anger management problems and has had them since we were children. She has been quick to anger and physically aggressive for as long as I can remember, a prime example of emotional dysregulation (Ball et al., 2008). She would scream until she was red in the face, bite, kick, and hit. Without a doubt my sister was a bully. My parents say her temperament was an indicator from a very early age. As she grew older the behavior took on different forms and became more manageable however she still wrestles with anger and temper management to this day. Our environments and genetic foundations were similar and our outcomes were very different. Psychologists and councilors were used to help her cope with her rage and aggression and to a degree it was helpful. In this sense certain environmental factors moderated what I believe was her genetically founded aggression. Do I believe there is a lone “aggression gene”: absolutely not. The behaviors that constitute aggression or emotional dysregulation more than likely have a variant and complex genetic basis compounded by neurological, hormonal, and environmental factors.
Victimization is not solely the fault of the aggressor. In some cases the behavior or traits of the victim make them a target. If traits that initiate aggressive behavior have a genetic basis, it makes sense that the traits such as introversion or emotional display, which invite aggression, would also have a genetic basis. Like the more easily visible traits of aggression these traits can also be exacerbated by negative life events (Ball et al., 2008). I believe that less attention is paid to these traits because they are not viewed as inherently damaging to the self or others.
References
Blum, K., Noble, E.P., Sheridan, P.J., Montgomery, A., Ritchie, T., Jagadeeswaran, P., Nogami, H., Briggs, A.H., Cohn, J.B. (1990). Allelic Association of Human Dopamine D2 Receptor Gene in Alcoholism. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1-6.
Ball, H.A., Arseneault, L., Taylor, A., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E. (2008). Genetic and environmental influences on victims, bullies and bully-victims in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 104-112.
I am a very firm believer in the idea that environment, not genes, are the major influence on a persons behavior. Of course there are instances such as pre-dispositions to certain conditions due to genetic inheritances. I believe that in certain cases then a genetic or environmental anomaly can override the partner trait. Such as in an example of a child who has a physical abnormality, they would be treated differently no matter what the environment simply because the abnormality exists.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the standpoint that there lies an "aggression" gene. Yes certain people could have, say, higher testosterone levels or physical traits that would enhance their predisposition to take advantage of these traits and become a bully. However, I firmly believe environment changes this, if children are raised in a morally sound and appropriate environment, bullying should not be a major issue. Like the quote ""If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes" , admits even genetics cannot resist the power of environment and it's transforming qualities.
"Identical twins, who share the exact same genetic makeup, were far more likely to have a similar social experience than fraternal twins whose DNA is generally only a 50 per cent match". This quote is misleading because it does not take in to account the variances identical and fraternal twins would experience. Some of the interactions with identical twins could be similar just for that fact, that they are identical twins. People may either not know the difference between the two are be interpreted as being biased if they are treating one different from another, resulting in changed behavior based off of these assumptions. I think it goes mainly in to environmental influences but obviously a genetic link could also play a large factor.
I believe that environment plays a stronger role in fostering a bully's mentality. I agree with most of my classmates that genes are not to blame for societal issues such as bullying. I believe it is possible that , like Boivin stated, if the environment is altered the role of genes can change and adjust. People can possess these so called "aggression genes" but I feel the environment in which they are in "activates" these genes and causes the aggressive behavior. It could even be possible that all people have these "aggression genes" and given the environment in which they are socialized in, these genes are turned on. Perhaps people have the makeup to be aggressive and their environment aggravates that sort of behavior. This study would have been more convincing if the twins' individual personality traits were assessed. Given the information provided in this article, I am also questioning the validity of this study. I feel as though more research needs to be conducted to fully verify the findings of this study.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to gene-environment interactions as discussed in class I do believe that it’s a factor that plays a role in bullying. One example I can think of is stress, if a child is experiencing stress from home maybe with family it is possible to take it out on other people and peers at school. Although the article does stress on genes and bullying a lot more I don’t think we should attack them for it. It’s what the research has proven with the twins but everyone knows that there are many other factors that play a role on why kids become bullies. It may be peer pressure, how they were raised, and even out of self-decisions.
ReplyDeleteSome people may not agree but I do think that the environment interaction of someone maybe one that override genes when it comes to bullying. The environment interaction takes into account a lot of situations a person can be going through to cause them to be a bully. However, with genes it might be that someone is more likely to be a bully or not but I do think with will power and choice, one can choose not to be a bully. “Genetic makeup maybe the root of certain behaviors” but as someone of my classmates may agree it shouldn’t be a blame for why someone is or chooses to be a bully.
With proof from the study it looks like there is genetic evidence that makes a person more prone to be a bully. I’m not sure if it’s an aggression gene however, it might just be the fact that they are more sensitive about certain emotions or topics. I do agree on fixing the problem at the root of the cause as well as trying to “nip the issues at an early age” which this article proves to be doing or trying to prove.
I tend to agree with many of my classmates that genes and environment both influence personality in regards to behavior and interactions. The article brings up a good point that behavior within a certain social experience may have an underlying genetic basis; however, I personally feel that environment has a more significant influence at a child's age. At such an early stage in life, behavior is modeled after a child's family members and the values promoted within the household. What a child is taught to be right or wrong behavior can be a reflection of the parent's morals and reinforcement. It's true that genetics determine a child's physical characteristics, but social interactions can be determined by personality and character. Both which are shaped by experiences in all environments. Therefore, it's possible that traits such as "hyperactivity, aggression and impulsiveness" can be tied to experiences outside of school. It is also difficult to pinpoint when certain genetic traits are expressed. For example, specific personality traits may not emerge until later in life. Children may not have reached the age that the aggressive and alienating traits that bullies possess, can be expressed within their interactions. Therefore, I agree with the article when they propose that parents who want to adjust problematic behavior in children can have a significant impact if they intervene at an early age. By changing their provided environment, they can facilitate change in behavior; perhaps, changing the way a child's genes respond to certain situations. Bullying shouldn't be justified because of DNA alone, along with passive and alienated behavior. A solid support system and good moral values should be the main basis of healthy social interactions among children. Overall, I was intrigued that Boivin and his colleagues studied around 800 pairs of twins, and their social experiences in school. I would have liked to see more data revealed from the research, but the correlation between child peer interactions and genetic makeup was very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI believe that genes do take an effect on people’s character, but the greater factor of social interaction is the environment in which an individual grows up in. This includes what they see on T.V., what happens at home and any other daily interactions that they come across. We have seen instances in which people with disabilities grow up in environments that are not suitable for them to succeed, consequently they become dependent upon the aid of others to get them through their daily lives. Adversely there have also been cases in which others with these same disabilities are able to function independently as normal people would.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is possible for a DNA characteristic to show resistance to the environmental conditions, it is most likely probable for environmental conditions to play a larger role in the social interaction of an individual. There is a possibility for bullies to have an “aggression” gene, but this gene can show its true colors and become heightened with a specific type of environment that exposes them to constant violence (whether that be through exposure to this concept at home or via media outlets or video games).
I think that Chin Chu’s opening line in his response said it best: “While I do not doubt that genetics has an impact on personality and physical traits, I do not believe that it is sufficient enough to explain bullying. Like many others who have responded, I too feel that a person’s genetic makeup is not the sole cause for bullying another or being bullied. Remember what we’ve learned in practically all of our Sargent courses – correlation does not imply causation. Yes, it is true that genetics play a role in personal appearance; such physical characteristics also factor into a child’s social experience. However, there are so many other things involved, and I like how Jillian Allen described her thoughts on the causes of bullying. “This has more to do with one's life experiences, their environment, their relationships, and how these aspects have shaped their self-esteem and behaviors.” Furthermore, Michel Boivin, lead researcher and psychology professor at Universite Laval, said how "It's not a phenotype or characteristic of the child, but the characteristics of their experiences.” It is the experiences children have, along with how they react/deal with them, that changes them internally and potentially affects how they act in the future.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that our genes influence certain pre-dispositions and tendencies, such as our tempermant or hyperactivity, that has an impact on our social interactions. It is very likely that some children are simply more patient and therefore less tolerable of classmates that don't "fit in". However, I think that most of our personality traits are shaped by our environment while growing up. I believe that the way in which we interact with other children is due largely to our own experiences. For example, studies have shown that children with siblings learn earlier on how to deal with arguments and conflict. (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060710,00.html) Because these children have experience interacting with others close to their age, they are better prepared to deal with the variety of issues that can come up at school amongst classmates. I believe that how we treat others is largely influenced by our environment and personal experiences.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentions that often physical appearances can result in bullying, which I agree with. Genetics can give a child a large nose that will be ridiculed, and in this case, genetics does play a large role in bullying. However, genetics does not explain why a child would become a bully. I'm not sure if there is an "agression gene", but I can believe that genes influence some character traits, or create a pre-disposition to act a certain way. However, I think that our environment is the most unfluential factor in how we treat others. Often, bullies at school have a difficult home life and are taking out their feelings on others. Also, it is possible that the parents of bullies didn't teach their children to treat others with the same level of consideration and respect as other parents.
I think that it is dangerous to say that a gene causes bullying. This indicates that how you raise a child is not important because they will turn out a certain way regardless. Parents could use genes as an excuse for poor parenting. If bullying is all genetic, then how likely is is for a person to change and stop being a bully? It will make parents and other adults less likely to try to teach the child to change because they may not believe a large change is possible. It is dangerous to blame any trait on purely genetics because then there might be less emphasis on our environment and upbringing which I believe is much more influential.
I do believe that our genes pre-dispose us to certain tendencies; however, it might be difficult to discern whether a child is pre-disposed to aggression because their parents are aggressive (i.e. the child was brought up in an abusive household), or if the child has a gene that makes him/her aggressive.
ReplyDeleteThere have always been cases of bullying in elementary and middle school, but in my experience, the majority of people grow out of it. By the end of high school, a lot of people realize that bullying is not socially acceptable, and many people stop being bullies. If a person is a bully because of their genes, then the people who stop being bullies must be somehow learning to supress that aggressive gene within them. It seems much more plausible to me that bullying is a result of the environment/social conditions in which a child grows up in. Once a child sees that it is not socially acceptable to bully anyone, they won't do it anymore.
Undoubtedly, pieces of our personality and demeanor resemble those of our parents at times, but when it comes to actions, the environment overrides genetics in this case. This article even points that direction at the end, "Boivin said parents who believe their children are exhibiting problematic behaviour would be wise to try and nip the issues in the bud at an early age." Maybe our genes play a role in our tendency toward a behavior, but our environment provides the constructs to fuel the fire or to "nip the issues in the bud".
ReplyDeleteIn terms of bullying, I think that more than the "aggression" gene, the problem lies in reactions—reactions from peers, from parents, and from professional authority figures. What is the root of the problem? This is different in every situation. For instance, I was not bullied much and I never really bullied. But, once, I distinctly remember bullying a girl on the school bus in the third grade. Why? Because everyone else was, or at least it felt like that. I went home and told my mom, and her reaction made me feel embarrassed, disappointed in myself. She drove me to her house and I, alone, had to go apologize. But, I feel like many children instigate bullying for attention, not because they feel uncomfortable in peer pressure. They don't mind getting in trouble if it means the teachers and their parents are giving them attention for it. These are the children who are driven by factors very different from those that drove me to bully in the fourth grade; they are thriving for attention—the attention they are not getting at home, unlike me.
So, yes, maybe everyone has some level of "aggression" in their genes, but it's our environment that determines the way we express that aggression or cope with it.
After reading this article, I did not find that I learned anything particularly striking. It is certainly true that our genes have an influence on who we are and how we behave. However, I agree with what many people have been saying in their comments, in that our environment can have just as much of an impact on our behaviors as our genes might. I know from my personal experience, the way I was brought up by my parents has absolutely impacted how I treat other people and how I carry myself in daily life.
ReplyDeleteThe article goes on to discuss how genes influence bullying and acts of aggression. I didn't find that the article was offering any real concrete information on correlations between genetic makeup and bullying. According to Boivin, this correlation does exist, but no statistics or facts are presented to support his statements throughout the article. It seems that Boivin is basing his assertions off of this study of twins, where he found that identical twins had far more similar social experiences than did fraternal twins. He says that since identical twins have the same genetic makeup, while fraternal twins only share 50% of their genes, genetic makeup directly influences social experience, and therefore bullying is a result of something in your genes. I feel that this could very well be true, but presenting an article like this could be very misleading to some readers who are taking this information at face value and not really investigating what it's saying. Luckily, Boivin cautions at the end of the article "The genes make it more likely that a child will behave a certain way and then have a certain experience, but it's not an absolute determinism," and "If you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes." While I appreciate that he says this in order to avoid misleading readers, I also feel that it somewhat defeats the purpose of the article by essentially saying that this finding isn't actually a big deal and by saying that he's confirming what scientists have agreed on for years, which is that who we are and how we act is the result of both our genetic makeup and the environment which has surrounded us throughout our lives.
I have found this article to be largely presumptuous. While I follow beliefs exploring the influence of environmental factors and gene expression, such as genetic determinism and epigenetics, I cannot readily accept the article’s claims that DNA may predispose a person to be bullied.
ReplyDeleteThe article takes a premature leap from identifying alienating traits such as hyperactivity and impulsiveness, and superimposes them onto arguments for genetic predispositions. Armed with my limited knowledge, it seems a variety of conclusions could be drawn from both the researcher’s findings and the narrow information provided in this article.
In class we’ve touched on the unique interaction between genes and the environment. I do agree with the science behind environmental influence on genes and gene expression; I understand the ways genetic make-up of individuals elicit different responses to exposure in relation to disease and illness, however I am skeptical of the broad connections the article makes to children’s behavior in the schoolyard.
I think that some people are more genetically inclined to behave a certain way, be good at something or have other traits but that environmental factors play a very large role in their behaviors. I don't think one can "override" the other but it is an interaction between their genetic inclination and their environment. Especially at such a young age when kids can still be changed, the roles of their environment, especially their parents play a huge role. Bullies may not have an aggression gene but may have more testosterone or have a more impulsive nature. Bullies often are troubled and are the victims of bullies themselves, either at home or at school. They may be in an environment which is power driven. Identical twins that are in the same household are raised in very similar environments. They grow up being associated and even mixed up with each other and are always the same gender. Many identical twins, especially at a young age have the same haircut, clothes and participate in similar activities. Fraternal twins, while also raised in similar environments can be different genders and are easier to distinguish.
ReplyDeleteLike many who've read this article I am also pessimistic about the findings. We all know that genetic makeup will have an effect on the way we look and act; however, this study just focuses on the genetic makeup of the victims of bullying and that these certain genes are the reasons for the individual being bullied. It would be a far more interesting and potentially beneficial if a study were done on the effects of genetics versus upbringing on the formation of a school bully. Both genetics and upbringing do play a role in the formation of an individuals habits, however this article left me wondering if some people are genetically more prone to actions of bullying.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that some genes are responsible for certain traits, I find it hard to believe that one’s tendency to bully a peer can be attributed to genetics. The study discussed in this article involved 800 pairs of identical and fraternal twins, who were interviewed over a five-year period to assess their peer interactions. The results showed that identical twins were more likely to have a similar social experience than fraternal twins, and this is thought to be because of their identical DNA. While this may seem plausible, it is also important to recognize the fact that the twins in this study—both fraternal and identical—were likely raised in the same household, by the same parents, and experienced the same social experiences. As with most siblings, the twins of this study probably mimicked the other, leading to the conclusion that twins, due to their similar DNA, either have or don’t have the “gene” for bullying.
ReplyDeleteA more reasonable explanation would be that these children have a predisposition to hyperactivity or aggression, and, given the circumstances, they may act out and partake in bullying. As many of my classmates have mentioned, this is a question of nature versus nurture. Children with the predisposition for these aggressive characteristics may express them if they are not taught to control them from the start. The environment in which one is raised has a lot to do with how your genes present themselves through your behavior.
While at first I was skeptical to accept that a child could be categorized as a "victim" by their genes, I'm open to the idea that there may be some links to traits that make them more timid and shy - or on the other hand - hyperactive and aggressive. Of course this is no excuse for them to be purposely labeled as victims and for their sufferings to be passed as a genetic fault, nor does this excuse bullies from targeting these children. However, I suppose there are personality links in children that cause them to be more prone to not fighting back when they come into contact with bullying behavior.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I accepted that being bullied is part of genetics is because there have been many studies that link aggression to genetics as well. (see link below). Many children whose parents are abusive or battle anger issues - and do not grow up in that environment - still end up as adults who also become aggressive and/or abusive in their later years. I find this interesting because while the environment plays a huge factor in the people we become, so do our genetics. And vice versa. There's no one true background factor that explains our characteristics but it's a complex web of the things that our body, mind, and senses put together to form our personality. So in the case of this article, while 'bully genes' may be present in some children, there is always a way to steer them away from such behaviors.
This is a link to an extremely interesting presentation on the theories of aggression: http://www.slideshare.net/beccawitt/aggression-learned-or-inherited-4434041. It's worth a look! And perhaps your view on where personality traits come from may change :)
Cheers!
- Mijin Lee
While I do believe that bullying is not a necessary part of society, I would say that it has always been there and always will be. For people to say that bullying is now a problem, it's not that the proportion of bullies has increased, but that bullying acts have been made more publicly aware and are not as accepted.
ReplyDeleteNow with that said, I do believe that our outcome is influenced both by our nature and nurture, gene and environment, but more on the nurture/environment side. Our genes make us more prone to a certain condition, such as being more likely to be aggressive like a bully, but that is just chance. It is our environment that is determining our outcome, so even though you are more likely to be a bully, your environment can change that, as Boivin noted when he said that "if you change the environment by intervening, then you change, eventually, the role of genes."
As easy as this idea may be to believe, I do not agree with the assumption that the trait that causes one to be a bully is genetically inherited. This debate between nature and nurture is one that I don’t think will ever be resolved. Like many of my classmates have already stated, I believe that a childs environment is as important and effective as any genetic code. However, the statement that genetics is crucial in determining physical traits is accurate, and can certainly lead to bullying or being victimized.
ReplyDeleteIn accordance to Krista’s argument, the researchers simply took into consideration these twins in a classroom setting. She is accurate when stating that identical twins are inclined to be treated the same because they simply look the same. Especially with younger children, twins would probably stay together if given the opportunity; therefore I don’t think this argument has much validity.
Going back to the nature vs. nurture argument, I am a firm believer that people create their environments and just because there may be a few genes that attest to certain behavioral types, there is no sole determinant that leads to bullying. Parental influence is another vital factor that hasn’t been given much credit. It is somewhat of a catch 22, because while parents could either attempt to shield their children they can actually harm them by doing so. The line is somewhat fuzzy when it comes to how much shielding a child should receive in order to either sustain from becoming a bully or being victimized. The only way that this idea that genes can play a role in bullying will, or should be accepted is if one considers the external factors of the environment and parental role.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this article shares some interesting details on their study of bullying behavior in twins, bullying is an external experience that is a product of many factors besides genetics. Genetic traits have obviously shaped our physical factors and much of our personality, but bullying is not solely determined by genetic traits. A child’s family life, relationship to peers, and the type of school they attend all determine how a child either gets bullied or becomes a bully. In addition, this is determined by where the child grew up, socioeconomic status, and
ReplyDeleteThis study cannot determine any relevant data by only studying twins. Twins have certain personalities that only they have and are not an ideal group to take data from. The idea of an aggression gene seems plausible when considering how much of ourselves is determined by our gene structure, but everyone has a certain level of aggression. People are able to learn to control their personalities so that they are not over taken by what ever their genetic makeup determines.
While I do believe that a person's genes definitely affect their behavior, I do not feel as though genes single-handedly have a strong enough effect to transform a child into a bully. In my opinion, the environment (or model figures present in a child's life) has just as much, if not more, of an impact on the behavior that a child chooses to engage in. Thus, the combination of these two factors are what create a bully.
ReplyDeleteWe are all familiar with the stereotype of the common childhood bully: a large, tough boy, shoving everything that gets in his way. But what about the more subtle forms of aggression such as social exclusion or rumour spreading? Social aggression has been proven to have just as large of a negative impact on the victim as physical aggression. I feel as though physical aggression is more likely to be associated to genetic factors than social. This raises the question of what type of aggression were the researchers referring to in their study?
I do not agree with the idea that the genes of the victims, contribute to their circumstance when being bullied. When referring to the study conducted with identical and fraternal twins, I feel as though it was not executed to its full potential. The results stating that "identical twins, who share the exact same genetic makeup, were much more likely to have a similar social experience than fraternal twins" can have other factors interfering with this outcome. For example, the reason the identical twins were treated more similarly was because they had more similarities in regards to their physical characteristics. The way a person looks tends to have an affect on how they are treated, therefore this concept could be the reason the identical twins had more similar experiences than the fraternal twins.
As far as gene-environment interaction regarding bullying is concerned, it has been proven that physical aggression (i.e. hitting) tends to decrease with age and is "unlearned" over time; while social aggression tends to increase with age and is learned over time. Thus, the decrease in physical aggression and the increase in social aggression that researchers have documented from early childhood through mid-adolescence suggest that social aggression may be more of a learned behavior than physical aggression. This notion is supported by research conducted on gene-environmental interaction regarding effects on behavior. According to this research, "at least 50% of differences between individuals in physical aggression during childhood are attributable to genetic influences whereas the other 50% are due to environmental influences." Thus, physical aggression in children seems to be affected by both nature and nurture equally. On the other hand, social aggression seems to have a much smaller likelihood of being inherited, and much more likely to be shaped by the child's environment. Therefore, I conclude that although genes do have an effect on bullying and aggression, the environment has the power to either exacerbate or control the expression of these "aggressive" genes.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/bullying-physical-social-aggression/?page=2
This article presents a valid argument for parents to discipline their children, especially when their children have a history of issues with authority. In doing this, parents can ensure that even if their child has the genes for aggression, they can prevent them from expressing these traits. Our genes definitely play a huge part in our characteristics but I think the environment we live in and the experiences we go through are more important in determining our personal identity. I think some people, especially bullies, could have a hereditary or genetic factor that causes them to have short tempers or be more hostile in certain situations. However, I strongly believe that their bad behavior can be changed if dealt with correctly. We also take after our parents and look to culture when deciding how to act in certain situations. If culture tells us that aggression is the way to go and parents don’t tell them otherwise, or worse, encourage that behavior, children will do as expected. I firmly believe that experience can either affirm or negate the genetics. This means that parents must lead by positive example so that their children can overcome the genetic side of their personality that is telling them to act impulsively or violently. Also, research has shown that cognitive-behavioral therapy in adults with violent or disciplinary problems is effective. In this technique, professionals try to show the aggressive person to see the error in their thinking in order to correct their maladaptive behavior and ideas. If this intervention is used on impressionable children, they could have an even better result because kids are still figuring out their identities and personalities.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I thought this article was going to address how genetics may make a child more likely to bully others, but was surprised to find that they are arguing that genetics make one more likely to BE bullied. Bullying is a social construct, and I'm finding it hard to believe that there are genes that can be expressed to make it more likely that that individual will be bullied. Yes, there are genes that make people more shy than others, more aggressive than others, etc, but bullying rarely has anything to do with the victim, as the issue usually lies with the person (or child) doing the bullying. Also, I simply don't think surveys and twin studies are enough to claim that there are genes that allow one to be bullied.
ReplyDeleteI think that the gene-environment balance is a significant one, and I believe that bullying (whether being the bully, or being bullied) is a learned behavior, as opposed to a genetic expression. "It's the genetic factors that underlie the tendency to behave in a certain way that explain how the group reacts to the child and then rejects and victimizes the child." Why are we blaming genes, and essentially the victim, instead of those who feel it's acceptable to reject and victimize others? What could possibly be being expressed in kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 4 that could be considered a legitimate reason to victimize someone? To me, this article is saying that people who are bullied are done so because of their genes, and therefore they can't change it and bullying them is okay. I worry that this article is a step backwards in genetics research. If we start heading into the direction of thinking that it is okay to be cruel to someone because of their genetic makeup, we will be travelling a dangerous road in the future.