Critically consider arguments for free-will in psychology (30 marks)

One argument for free-will comes from the psychological argument, which suggests that people have a subjective sense of free-will and all people are able to make their own free choices about their behaviour. Evidence for this comes from Dr. Johnson in the 18th Century who sustained the idea that ‘we know our will is free, and there’s an end on ‘t’. (A01)

However, a counterargument towards the psychological argument is that simply feeling that you are free does not mean that this is true. Skinner claimed that free will was an illusion – we think we are free, but this is because we are not aware of how our behaviour is determined by reinforcement. Freud also thought that free will was an illusion, because he felt that the causes of our behaviour is unconscious and therefore still predictable. (A02 )

In contrast, Valentine (1982) claims that this subjective sense of free will is tenable (reasonable). It is something that can be studied and thus shown to be true, e.g., attitudes towards free will have been found to increase with age and are also more common in individualistic cultures such as the USA and UK where personal responsibility receives greater emphasis. (A02 )

Another argument for free will in psychology derives from the ethical argument. This states that if an individual’s behaviour is determined by forces beyond their control, then the individual cannot be held responsible for their actions. For example, Stephen Mobley who killed a pizza shop manager in 1981, claimed he did this because he was born to kill, as evidenced by a family history of violence. However, our laws insist that adults do have individual responsibility for their actions and so have free will, and thus Mobley was sentenced to death as he was accountable for his actions. Also, Van Dunsen et al. (1983) looked at biology and crime. He used 14, 427 people adopted by unrelated families. The theory is if the parent’s have a predisposition to crime then their children will. It was found that as the ‘criminality’ of the biological parent increases from having no convictions on court record to three or more convictions, the proportion of adopted sons who are subsequently convicted themselves steadily increases from about 13% to 25%. (A01)

In contrast, it may be possible to have a moral fashion without having moral responsibility. For example, behaviourists suggest that moral behaviour is largely through punishment or the threat of punishment. There is no individual responsibility because good or bad behaviour is determined by external forces. Thus, there would be no need for a concept of moral responsibility, as suggested by the free will debate. If an individual behaved in an anti-social way, it would not, according to this view, matter whether or not they were responsible; they should still be punished to prevent it happening again. (A02 )

There is however, research which supports the free will argument which comes from humanistic psychologists such as Roger’s (1959) who proposed a personality theory based on the concept of self-determination (Free will) and self actualisation. He suggested that taking responsibility for oneself is the route to healthy self development. This is demonstrated in Rogers’ client-centred therapy where the therapist is the facilitator for the client to help them make sense of their current situation and future. This allowed the client to develop a sense of control over their future and decide on what is best for themselves. (A01)

There are however, a number of arguments against free-will, one of which is the difficulty in specifying free will. The notion of free will implies that there is something doing the ‘willing’, something that is mental rather than physical. Furthermore how do the mental and physical states interact? E.g., how it is that thinking about moving one’s foot results in the nervous and muscular activity required. ‘Materialists’ believe that only physical states exist, whereas ‘dualists’ believe that there are separate mental and physical states. From a materialist perspective, we may gain insight into the location of free will by considering mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia where patients lack voluntary control or the ability to initiate activity. (A02)

A second argument against free-will is that it is not consistent with the scientific approach. Events being determined by something in the past is fundamental to scientific psychology. In psychology we measure behaviour before and after an experiment to explore cause/effect relationships, e.g., looking at stress and the immune system, whereby exam stress was thought to cause low white blood cells. However, if human behaviour is governed by free will, then there is no causality to be discovered. (A02)

In contrast, there’s the idea that science no longer upholds the view that the world is predictable; it is best described as ‘probabilistic’ (Dennett, 2003). Heisenberg’s ‘Uncertainty Principle’ (1927) suggests that particles can no longer be predicted. Thus, if scientists cannot predict particle movement, then human behaviour cannot be predicted. (A02)

A further argument for free-will comes from science’s lack of success. Psychological research which may have discovered cause and effect relationships in the laboratory may not be applied to the real world and thus lacked ecological validity. For example, Loftus carried out research in the laboratory where she looked at leading questions, and changing the verbs in sentences. However, the results were unreliable! Yuille and Cutshall carried out similar research yet found reliable results in real life situations. (A01)

However, a weakness with this statement is that scientific investigations of human behaviour have produced valid knowledge which can be applied to the real world. E.g., research into stress and the immune system have shown the link between physical and psychological factors intertwining can affect an individual. (A02)

A further argument for free-will is that people are not predictable. Mischel’s theory of personality proposed that people do not have a consistent personality, which would challenge the claim that personality is predictable. He claimed that people’s behaviour varies from one situation to another. E.g., you might be shy in class, but when you’re with your friends you can be loud and outgoing. (A01) However, Fleeson (2001) supports the view that people are consistent across situations, thus supporting the notion of causality in human behaviour and determinism. (A02)

A further argument for free-will is that determinism is not falsifiable. Theories should generate hypotheses that can be tested to see if there are true or false. If this is not possible, then you cannot ‘prove’ a theory’s validity. The question of whether all behaviour can be explained within a determinist framework receives the reply that as yet is not possible. (A01)

However, Valentine (1982) suggests that in fact determinism is falsifiable because it has been falsified by the uncertainty principle! Thus the proof that determinism is not true demonstrates that at least it can be falsified. (A02)

Most psychologists now accept that the real debate is about how much of human behaviour is due to free will and how much is due to determinism. This is called soft determinism, and it suggests that biological and environmental factors determine behaviour, but there is an element of free will involved as well – but the question remains – how much of each is involved? (A01)

Word count: 1000