Specification: Free will and determinism: hard determinism and soft determinism; biological, environmental and psychic determinism. The scientific emphasis on causal explanations.
Free will and determinism
Determinism is the view that free will is an illusion, and that our behaviour is governed by internal or external forces over which we have no control. Consequently, our behaviour is viewed as predictable. The causal laws of determinism form the basis of science. An example of an external force would be the influence of parents when rewarding certain behaviours. In contrast, an example of an internal force would be hormones influencing how someone behaves.
However, while determinism is the view that we have no control over our behaviour, there are varying degrees of determinism, including hard and soft determinism. Hard determinism is the view that forces outside of our control (e.g. biology or past experience) shape our behaviour. Hard determinism is seen as incompatible with free will. Soft determinism is an alternative position favoured by many psychologists. According to soft determinism, behaviour is constrained by the environment or biological make-up, but only to a certain extent. Soft determinism suggests that some behaviours are more constrained than others and that there is an element of free will in all behaviour. This was the view of Nick Heather (1976), who proposed that while our behaviour is predictable, that doesn’t make it inevitable. We can choose how to behave, but we usually only have a limited number of behaviours to choose from.
Free will is the idea that we can play an active role and have a choice in how we behave. The assumption is that individuals are free to choose their behaviour and are self-determined. For example, people can make a free choice as to whether to commit a crime or not. Therefore, a person is responsible for their actions, and it is impossible to predict human behaviour with any precision.
Examples of determinism in Psychology
Biological determinism refers to the idea that all human behaviour is innate and determined by genes. Research into the human genome provides evidence to support the concept of biological determinism. For example, research has found that a particular gene (IGF2r) is implicated in intelligence (Hill et al., 1999). Furthermore, Chorley et al., (1998) reported a statistically significant association between IQ test scores and the IGF2r gene on chromosome six, suggesting that intelligence is to some extent biologically determined.
Environmental determinism is the view that behaviour is determined or caused by forces outside the individual. Environmental determinism posits that our behaviour is caused by previous experience learned through classical and operant conditioning. For example, Bandura (1961) found that children with violent parents are more likely to become violent parents themselves, as a result of observational learning.
Finally, Psychic determinism, claims that human behaviour is the result of childhood experiences and innate drives (id, ego and superego), as in Freud’s model of psychological development.
Evaluation
Humanistic psychologists argue against determinism, claiming that humans have self-determination and free will and that behaviour is not the result of any single cause. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence to support humanistic psychologists. For example, identical twin studies typically find an 80% similarity in intelligence scores and a 40% similarity in the likelihood of depression. However, as identical twins share 100% of their genes, these results suggest that 20% is caused by other (environmental) factors. This demonstrates that biological determinism is unable to explain any particular behaviour, in this case, depression and intelligence. The same evidence indicates that no behaviour is entirely environmentally determined. If identical twins only show an 80% likeness in terms of intelligence, it is therefore assumed that only 20% is caused by the environment.
While Freud appears to support a deterministic point of view, in that he argued that the unconscious controls our actions and our thoughts, the goal of psychoanalysis is to help patients overcome that force. This insight has been taken up by several neo-Freudians, and one of the most influential has been Erich Fromm (1941). He argued that all of us have the potential to control our lives but that many of us are too afraid to do so, which means 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 Fromm sees the essence of human freedom in being the choice between good and evil.
Many psychologists, theorists and legal experts do not favour a deterministic point of view. If behaviour is determined by outside forces, that provides a potential excuse for criminal acts. For example, in 1981, Stephen Mobley argued that he was ‘born to kill’ after killing a pizza shop manager because his family had a disposition towards violence and aggressive behaviour. An American court rejected this argument. Therefore, a genuinely determinist position may be undesirable as it provides an ‘excuse’, allowing people to mitigate their liability and could lead to vexing legal issues regarding the nature of responsibility and intent (mens rea).
However, the idea of free will has attracted similar criticisms. Some psychologists, such as Skinner, argue that free will is an illusion. Skinner insisted that our behaviour is environmentally determined, even if we are unable (or unwilling) to admit it. Also, more recent evidence provides some support for Skinner’s claim. For example, Libet et al. (1983) found that the motor regions of the brain become active before a person registers conscious awareness of a decision, i.e. the decision to move the finger was a pre-determined action of the brain. This strongly suggests that many responses are biologically determined and that although we may believe that we have free will, Skinner’s claim that free will is an illusion, may be correct.
The scientific approach and determinism
Science is heavily deterministic in its search for causal relationships as it seeks to discover whether X causes Y, or whether the independent variable causes changes in the dependent variable. For example, in Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) research, they manipulated the verb used in the critical question (IV), to measure the effect on the participant’s estimate of speed (DV). In Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment, he manipulated the condition to which the children were exposed (aggressive role model, non-aggressive model and no role model) to examine the effect on the behaviour of the children.
Evaluation
Even in the natural sciences, it is now accepted that there is no such thing as hard determinism. This type of determinism seemed more appropriate in the 18th and 19th centuries when most physicists believed they would eventually be able to make exact and accurate predictions about everything relevant to physics. However, discoveries in the 20th century suggested they were unduly optimistic. For example, according to chaos theory (Hilborn, 1994), tiny changes in initial conditions can produce significant changes later. Theoretically, the flap of a butterfly’s wing in one part of the world could ultimately change the whole weather system in a different part of the world. Such a chain of events doesn’t lend itself to prediction, and so it is impossible to show that an approach based on hard determinism is appropriate.
While experiments are keen to establish causation, where X causes Y, they typically discount or minimise the importance of extraneous variables that have not been controlled. Furthermore, experiments often make sweeping generalisations about human behaviour and don’t acknowledge that at a different time, in a different place, our behaviour may not be influenced by X. There are so many variables that influence human behaviour that it is impossible to control them effectively.
Finally, according to Baumeister (2009), psychological causality, as revealed in psychology laboratories is arguably never deterministic. Statistical tests show the probability that something occurred by chance. This means that our entire statistical enterprise is built on the idea of multiple possibilities rather than a single cause.
Critical thinking
Is scientific determinism the best way to study human behaviour? Are all research methods used in psychology deterministic? What are the strengths and limitations of using a deterministic approach in psychology?
Is belief in free will and personal responsibility universal? Do you think that some cultures would be less likely to believe in free will? What types of cultures do you think they would be and why?
Possible exam questions
Explain what is meant by ‘hard determinism’ and ‘soft determinism’. (4 marks)
This is an extract from a newspaper article: “Research suggests that depression runs in the family. However, many depressed people also have other issues, including social problems, or problems with drink or drugs. Despite these challenges, many depressed people overcome their depression and find ways to resolve their issues.” With reference to the extract above, explain what is meant by ‘determinism’. Refer to at least two types of determinism in your answer. (6 marks)
Discuss the role of free will in human behaviour. (8 marks)
Discuss the free will and determinism debate in psychology. Refer in your answer to at least two topics you have studied. (16 marks)
