The debate surrounding free will and determinism is one that has occupied psychologists and philosophers for centuries. Those who believe in determinism believe that all behaviour is determined by external and internal forces acting on the person. An example of an external force would be parents rewarding certain type of behaviour, therefore further encouraging it, whilst an internal force would be that of hormones. Those who believe in free will believe matters are slightly more complex. They agree that external and internal factors do exist but that people have free will to choose their behaviour. The argument of freewill and determinism can be summed up by the questions “could a person’s behaviour have been different in a certain situation if they willed it?” Those who believe in determinism would argue no whilst those who believe in free will would say yes.
Determinism is espoused by more theories in psychology than in free will. Behaviourists are strongly determinists. Determinists claim that the nature of the universe is such that it is goverened by certain universal scientific laws, so that each action is caused by a specific prior cause, and human action is no exception. They believe that precise prediction of human behaviour is possible if an individual’s current stimulus situation is known and if there conditioning history is also known. Skinner argued that all behaviour is determined by environmental events and that humans tend to repeat behaviours that are rewarded. Skinner stated that free will was simply an illusion.
Bandura, a neobehaviourist, believed in reciprocal determinism and pointed a flaw in Skinners approach. If people’s actions are solely determined by the external rewards and punishments then people would be like weather vanes constantly changing direction to conform to the whims of others. Bandura stated that people have long-term goals and strive to meet these rather than following others. Skinner focused exclusively on the nation that our behaviour is determined by the external environment however our behaviour also determines our environment. There are a number of different multi determinants of behaviour and Skinner largely ignored these.
Freud also believed strongly in determinism. According to Freud, trivial phenomenons such as calling someone by someone else’s name are due to definite causes in the person’s motivational system. Freudian slips are involuntary but motivated errors that reveal a person’s true desires. The Psychodynamic approach believes that internal systems such as defence mechanisms determine the way people behave as adults.
The biological approach believes that behaviour is determined by a person’s genes and internal systems. In regards to mental disorders this approach states that it is not the patients fault they are ill. Their biology pre-disposes them to certain conditions and therefore cannot be controlled unless their biological make up is manipulated. This has been proved, to an extent, with the knowledge that disorders such as schizophrenia are as a result of high levels of dopamine within the brain.
Psychology although deterministic might in fact be better described as probabilistic. The chaos theory and butterfly effect are an example of this.
In contrast the humanistic approach believes that individuals have free will. Manslow and Rogers argued that the notion that people’s behaviour is at the mercy of external forces is inaccurate and that people have free will in that they can choose how they wish to behave. Rogers client centred therapy was based on the notion that individuals have free will. The psychologist was known as the facilitator and his or her role was to help the patient exercise free will and increase the benefits of life. Roger’s believed our actions are free within a framework. The approach states that determinism is too mechanistic and being unfalsifiable it is impossible to assume behaviour is determined. With regards to mental illness, it is a result of the patient not being able to accept themselves or others around them. Therefore the humanistic approach believes illness is due to freewill and personal decisions. The psychodynamic approach, although mainly deterministic, believed that there is a potential for free will. Freud stated that psychoanalysis is based on the belief that people can change their behaviour. However there are two main problems with this approach; firstly what is meant by freewill? If according to determinism everything has a definite cause then is free will random? Very few people would argue in favour of such an extreme position. Also it may be that determinism does have an effect on the world but not on humans in which case there are many implications which have been left unanswered.
The ethical argument also supports free will. In order to expect moral responsibility, one must accept the concept of free will. If an individual’s behaviour is determined by forces beyond an individual’s control then the individual cannot be held responsible for their actions. However our laws insist that adults do have individual responsibility for their actions and so implicitly society supports freewill.
Soft determinism is an approach that argues that people’s behaviour is constrained by the environment, but only to a certain extent. Some behaviour is more constrained than other. There is an element of free will in all behaviour however it can also be controlled by outside forces. William James advocated this approach which is a medium between the two extreme views. The issue of the extent to which we have free will is more of a philosophical question rather than scientific, as both beliefs are unfalsifiable. All psychologists agree on the fact that behaviour is made up, to an extent of biology, past experiences and present environment.
Article by TSR User on Thursday 15 February 2018
Freewill and Determinism
Saul McLeod published 2013
The determinist approach proposes that all behavior is caused by preceding factors and is thus predictable. The causal laws of determinism form the basis of science.
Free will is the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act and assumes that we are free to choose our behavior, in other words we are self determined.
For example, people can make a free choice as to whether to commit a crime or not (unless they are a child or they are insane). This does not mean that behavior is random, but we are free from the causal influences of past events. According to freewill a person is responsible for their own actions.
Some approaches in psychology see the source of determinism as being outside the individual, a position known as environmental determinism. For example, Bandura (1961) showed that children with violent parents will in turn become violent parents through observation and imitation.
Others see it from coming inside i.e., in the form of unconscious motivation or genetic determinism – biological determinism. E.g., high IQ has been related to the IGF2R gene (Chorney et al., 1998).
Behaviorists are strong believers in determinism. Their most forthright and articulate spokesman has been B. F. Skinner. Concepts like “free will” and “motivation” are dismissed as illusions that disguise the real causes of human behavior.
For Skinner (1971) these causes lay in the environment – more specifically in physical and psychological reinforcers and punishments. It is only because we are not aware of the environmental causes of our own behavior or other people’s that we are tricked into believing in our ability to choose.
In Skinner’s scheme of things the person who commits a crime has no real choice. (S)he is propelled in this direction by environmental circumstances and a personal history, which makes breaking the law natural and inevitable.
For the law-abiding, an accumulation of reinforcers has the opposite effect. Having been rewarded for following rules in the past the individual does so in the future. There is no moral evaluation or even mental calculation involved. All behavior is under stimulus control.
The other main supporters of determinism are those who adopt a biological perspective. However for them it is internal, not external, forces that are the determining factor. According to sociobiology evolution governs the behavior of a species and genetic inheritance that of each individual within it. For example Bowlby (1969) states a child has an innate (i.e. inborn) need to attach to one main attachment figure (i.e. monotropy).
Personality traits like extraversion or neuroticism, and the behavior associated with them, are triggered by neurological and hormonal processes within the body. There is no need for the concept of an autonomous human being. Ultimately this view sees us as no more than biological machines and even consciousness itself is interpreted as a level of arousal in the nervous system.
However, a problem with determinism is that it is inconsistent with society's ideas of responsibility and self control that form the basis of our moral and legal obligations.
An additional limitation concerns the facts that psychologists cannot predict a person's behavior with 100% accuracy due to the complex interaction of variables which can influence behavior.
One of the main assumptions of the humanistic approach is that humans have free will; not all behavior is determined. Personal agency is the humanistic term for the exercise of free will. Personal agency refers to the choices we make in life, the paths we go down and their consequences.
For humanistic psychologists such as Maslow (1943) and Rogers (1951) freedom is not only possible but also necessary if we are to become fully functional human beings. Both see self-actualisation as a unique human need and form of motivation setting us apart from all other species. There is thus a line to be drawn between the natural and the social sciences.
To take a simple example, when two chemicals react there is no sense in imagining that they could behave in any other way than the way they do. However when two people come together they could agree, fall out, come to a compromise, start a fight and so on. The permutations are endless and in order to understand their behavior we would need to understand what each party to the relationship chooses to do.
Cognitive psychologists are also inclined to attribute importance to free will, and adopt a soft determinism view. However whereas humanists are especially interested in our choice of ends (how each of us sees the road to self actualization) cognitive psychologists are more inclined to focus on the choice of means. In other words for them it is the rational processing of information which goes into the making of a decision which is their main interest.
Conscious reflection on our own behavior is seen as the best way of achieving goals and learning from mistakes. Calculation, strategy, organization etc are interpreted as key elements – not only in governing the choices that we make but also in helping us make the “right” choices in particular situations.
Mental illnesses appear to undermine the concept of freewill. For example, individuals with OCD lose control of their thoughts and actions and people with depression lose control over their emotions.
Ranged against the deterministic psychologies of those who believe that what “is” is inevitable are therefore those who believe that human beings have the ability to control their own destinies. However there is also an intermediate position that goes back to the psychoanalytic psychology of Sigmund Freud.
At first sight Freud seems to be a supporter of determinism in that he argued that our actions and our thoughts are controlled by the unconscious. However the very goal of therapy was to help the patient overcome that force. Indeed without the belief that people can change therapy itself makes no sense.
This insight has been taken up by several neo-Freudians. One of the most influential has been Erich Fromm (1941). In “Fear of Freedom” he argues that all of us have the potential to control our own lives but that many of us are too afraid to do so.
As a result we give up our freedom and allow our lives to be governed by circumstance, other people, political ideology or irrational feelings. However determinism is not inevitable and in the very choice we all have to do good or evil Fromm sees the essence of human freedom.
Psychologists who take the free will view suggest that determinism removes freedom and dignity, and devalues human behavior. By creating general laws of behavior, deterministic psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human beings and their freedom to choose their own destiny.
There are important implications for taking either side in this debate. Deterministic explanations for behavior reduce individual responsibility. A person arrested for a violent attack for example might plead that they were not responsible for their behavior – it was due to their upbringing, a bang on the head they received earlier in life, recent relationship stresses, or a psychiatric problem. In other words, their behavior was determined.
The deterministic approach also has important implications for psychology as a science. Scientists are interested in discovering laws which can then be used to predict events. This is very easy to see in physics, chemistry and biology. As a science, psychology attempts the same thing – to develop laws, but this time to predict behavior If we argue against determinism, we are in effect rejecting the scientific approach to explaining behavior
Clearly, a pure deterministic or free will approach does not seem appropriate when studying human behavior Most psychologists use the concept of free will to express the idea that behavior is not a passive reaction to forces, but that individuals actively respond to internal and external forces.
The term soft determinism is often used to describe this position, whereby people do have a choice, but their behavior is always subject to some form of biological or environmental pressure.
Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross,S.A (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Chorney, M. J., Chorney, K., Seese, N., Owen, M. J., Daniels, J., McGuffin, P., ... & Plomin, R. (1998). A quantitative trait locus associated with cognitive ability in children. Psychological Science, 9(3), 159-166.
Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. London: Constable.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
How to reference this article:
McLeod, S. A. (2013). Freewill and determinism in psychology. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html