KYKO Nature Dimension

Behaviorology is a natural science that investigates the genetic, physical, and cultural variables that determine behavior, both human and nonhuman. It fills the gap between biology and the materialistic study of sociocultural phenomena. Its basic unit of analysis is the contingent relations between actions and events that follow those actions (i.e., consequences). Like evolutionary biology, the paradigm of behaviorology is selectionistic: certain consequences select (reinforce) behavior. Behaviorologists, in support of their scientific claims, point to a large body of behavioral engineering research having proven efficacy: applied behavior analysis.

KYKOLOGY, 2021

KYKO, an acronym for "Know Yourself, Know Others" is a psychometric personality instrument developed from the integration of six schools of contemporary and existing personality theories to map out the patterns of human behavior. KYKO Psychometric Instrument is a powerful tool to diagnose your normal, disordered and dynamic personality. KYKO can be customized to assist organizations to have a clear picture of their staffs' or workers' individual personal profiles that can assist them in finding solutions to develop their human capital, enhance their human resource functions and to solve problems caused by human differences.

Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 2013

Abstract Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive. In practice the nature-nurture model persists as a way of framing discussion on the causes of behaviour in genetic research papers, as well as in the media and lay debate. Social and environmental theories of crime have been dominant in criminology and in public policy while biological theories have been seen as outdated and discredited. Recently, research into genetic variations associated with aggressive and antisocial behaviour has received more attention in the media. This paper explores ideas on the role of nature and nurture in violent and antisocial behaviour through interviews and open-ended questionnaires among lay publics. There was general agreement that everybody’s behaviour is influenced to varying degrees by both genetic and environmental factors but deterministic accounts of causation, except in exceptional circumstances, were rejected. Only an emphasis on nature was seen as dangerous in its consequences, for society and for individuals themselves. Whereas academic researchers approach the debate from their disciplinary perspectives which may or may not engage with practical and policy issues, the key issue for the public was what sort of explanations of behaviour will lead to the best outcomes for all concerned.

cib, 2011

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open Select article to confirm conditions of access and use.

Attitudes and Behavioral Decisions, 1989

Despite continuous challenges, highlighted in the work of two 01' the field's most inOuential critics, LaPiere (1934) and Wickel' (1969), attitude-behavior research has continued to be one ofthe most prolific areas in mainstream social psychology (cf. Canary & Seibold, 1984). To account for this persisting interest in relating attitudes to subsequent behavior, a straightforward and simple explanation has been presented by Kahle (1984, p. 105): "The basic rationale for understanding attitudes hinges on the notion that attitudes will reveal something about probable behavior. Since hehaviors are c1ifficult to predict and to measure, the assumption has heen that allitudes would provide a shortcut to understanding behaviors." As this statement implies, the conceptual validity of the attitude concept has been defined and evaluated in terms of its capacity to account for suhstantial proportions of behavioral variance. Two recent trends in conceptualizing and operationalizing attitudes as predictor variables of subsequent behavior will be discussed in the next section, thus providing the foundation for the research reported in the remainder of the chapter: (I) the search für general models of behavior prediction based on a Iimited set of predictor variables, and (2) the identiftcation of moderator variables that critically affect the relationship between attitudes and behaviors. Basic Concepts and Applied Perspectives in Attitude-Behavior Research In order to be effective as "shortcuts to understanding behavior," prediction models must be as parsimonious and, at the same time, as generally applicahle as possible. Therefore, the models that are brieOy descrihed here confine themselves to no more than three to foul' prediclors. In his model of"interpersonal behavior," Triandis (1977) speci fies a person's habits, hehavioral intentions, and facilitating external conditions as the most important predic

The concepts of nature and nurture shape the development of human beings. This write up sets out to assess the nature nurture debate, pinpointing the effects each has on the development of children. Terms that will be defined are nature nurture debate, nature and nurture. Feldman (2009) defines the nature nurture debate as the issue of the degree to which environment and hereditary factors influence the behaviour. According to Flanagan (2002) nature refers to behavioural or physical traits found in a developing child that are due to genetic factors. Feldman (2009:39) says “nature refers to hereditary factors, characteristics and tendencies that influence development.” Thus nature can be defined as inborn characteristics such as generic diseases evident in a developing child. Santrock (2004) defines nurture as environmental factors that have an influence on the development of a human being. According to Bernstein (2011) nurture refers to all environmental influence, after the birth of a child that affects development. Hence nurture can be called post natal factors that influence development of people. Lahey

Journal of Child and Adolescent Behaviour, 2015

This editorial aims at addressing the endless debate concerned with the extent to which particular aspects of behavior are a product of either nature (inherited i.e. genetic), nurture (acquired i.e. learned), or their interaction. In spite of the philosophical conflict between nativists who adopt an extreme hereditary position i.e. attributing everything to biological factors (nature) and environmentalists who believe that the way we are brought up (nurture) totally governs the psychological aspects of our childhood development through learning, it is hardly today to accept either of these extreme positions. There are simply too many "facts" on both sides of the argument which are inconsistent with an "all or none" view. So instead of asking whether the child development is down to nature or nurture, the question has been reformulated to "How much?" i.e., considering the fact that both heredity and environment influence the person we become, which is the more important? This is really the individualized question that needs to be answered. Lastly but by no means least, sorting out what is the cause and what is the effect is no mere academic matter. If we are really trying to help people's lives, it is essential to get it right.

2018

The purpose of this paper is to expose the differences and similarities between nature and nurture. How they correlate to each other, and shape human development. Without nature and nurture, we would all be the same, and have the same experiences. This controversial topic is one of the oldest arguments in psychology. Nature vs. Nurture states that feelings, ideas, and human behavior are innate or learned. I will be writing about when this debate first rooted, and why. I will be arguing that we are born with certain characteristics in our thinking, that are then shaped by our experiences. I will then examine about how genes do affect our behavior, and how the environment shapes behavior. To fully uncover the nature and nurture, I will conduct thorough research on the topic in autism and twins. These two case studies will help to dissect the critical issue of nurture and nature. In the thesis, I will look into different scholars’ view on the nature and nurture topic.