Behavioral traits
These observations imply that it is impossible to reduce genes based on behavioral traits. That is because problematic personal behaviors result from a complex interplay between neurons formed in the brain. The Human Connectome Project by the NIH and conducted in several universities worldwide sought to comprehend these neuronal networks. Learning the roles of these neural pathways in the human brain in shaping a person’s behaviors is essential in understanding how nurture impacts the brain. While it may sound futuristic, human beings are far away from modifying DNA. The information chasm on existing comprehension of how the interaction between the environment and genes is too wide to begin altering behavioral traits through genome editing. Moreover, there are insufficient tools to undertake such a project. Also, there are several ethical hindrances facing animal testing, which also limit the understanding of more subtle behavioral traits lie disgust and anger. Until now, scientists have used genetics to identify the gees related to smoking, novelty seeking, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Although there is increased information regarding the genes versus environment debate, there are still several questions without answers. The effects of these unsolved issues affect human beings. For instance, social scientists are yet to determine the life stage when the environment plays its most significant role in shaping behavior and how nurture impacts DNA, among other concerns. Studies indicate that people do not merely inherit several personality traits because other environmental variables also influence a person’s behavioral tendencies. These unpredictable nurture factors have the most significant effect on personality, but controlling them is much harder compared to genetic code. Overall, present studies indicate that genetic factors are essential in comprehending both personality change and stability. Nevertheless, environmental factors also support the more comprehensive transactional viewpoints on a person’s personality development. The life course or transactional perspective of personal growth implies that extrinsic and intrinsic factors are crucial in molding emotional dispositions.
In essence, past genetically-informed researches also highlight the environmental influences on an adult’s personality development. Collectively, these results appear to contradict the pure intrinsic maturation narrative. Nevertheless, future genetics-based studies are necessary to provide a definite conclusion to this debate. Notably, personality changes are generally more stable as one transition from childhood to adulthood. Also, the negative attributes in a person ten to decline with age, and people show increased behavioral constraints during the transitional phase to maturity. Furthermore, young adulthood tends to be the period in a life-course where people develop normative personality changes. In light of this observation, researchers can likely identify the causative factors of personality changes by narrowing the study focus on the youth phase research.
Study Limitations
Although there are several methodological strengths to modern genetically-informed studies such as age-targeted sampling and the use of identical twins, many limitations exist for these approaches. First, there are several controversies concerning the personality traits’ structure. Since researchers have noted some different patterns across several personality traits, future studies should evaluate personality development through other trait models. Some recent studies indicate that several trait models are compatible with most hierarchical structures. That implies that various trait setups are not competitive, but instead, they offer alternative options for organizing personality features at different abstraction levels. Secondly, the majority of modern studies rely on single self-analysis of personality.
Besides the common concerns related to utilizing any isolation method or self-reports, other evidence indicates that non-shared nurture effects can be exaggerated when applying self-reports alone. Thus, future studies should use several personality assessment methods. Lastly, most sampling methods effectively target a single essential developmental phase. Therefore, future studies should span several age gaps and have frequent assessments to provide clear patterns occurring on personality modifications and influences across a person’s lifetime. Related to this observation, results of more significant variability in existing studies relate to developmental procedures discussed herein and somehow longer analysis intervals. As such, more researches are necessary to confirm whether these findings reflect substantial personality changes in the early life phases and the transition stages.
Overall, this review explores the significance of age-targeted and integrative approaches for comprehending environmental and genetic impacts on personality development throughout a person’s lifetime. Consistent with past studies, this research indicates that personality traits tend to exhibit similar differential stability patterns but different outright stability trends. Evidence on transitional studies shows that general trends of enhanced personality maturity appearing between ages seventeen and twenty-four were more active compared to the time between twenty-four and twenty-nine years. Biometric evaluations provide a more in-depth insight into the stability and change’s etiology and facilitate straightforward analyses of personality modifications’ separate theoretical viewpoints during development. In essence, increased maturity, together with life course perspective, seems to best illustrate personality development, especially during transitional stages such as from teenage to adulthood.