Discuss the free will and determinism debate in psychology. [16 marks]
Determinism is the belief that behaviour is influenced by internal and external factors. There are two
sides of determinism, known as hard and soft determinism. Hard determinism is the belief that all
behaviour is predictable and there is no free will, whereas soft determinism is the belief that our
behaviour has some element of free will but is still partly influenced by internal and external factors
we cannot control. Psychologists have identified different types of determinism that influence
behaviour. For example, psychic determinism is when our behaviour is controlled by unconscious
processes and early childhood experiences. For example, Freud proposed that our early childhood
experiences, e.g. not resolving the Oedipus complex, can influence our future behaviour e.g.
developing phobias or psychotic behaviours. Biological determinism states that our behaviour is
determined by genetic influences. For example, in the genetic explanation for OCD the COMT and/or
SERT genes have been observed to cause OCD. On the other side of this debate, is the free will
argument which states that humans are self-determined, therefore we are free to make our own
decisions that shape our lives without the influence of internal and external forces. Free will can be
explained through the humanistic approach in psychology where psychologists such as Masow and
Rogers argue that free will is necessary to take responsibility for and change behaviour.
An argument against biological determinism is that behaviour cannot be entirely determined by
genetics. For instance, psychologists have used twin studies to compare the similarity of intelligence
and depression in monozygotic twins and found an 80% concordance rate in intelligence while a 40%
concordance rate for depression. The fact that the concordance rates are not 100% suggests that
genes do not entirely determine behaviour. The evidence suggests that the environmental factors
may contribute to depression and intelligence too, however the environment cannot be the sole
determining factor too suggesting a combination of genes and the environment determine
behaviour. Therefore, it is falsely presumptuous to suggest genes or the environment solely
determine behaviour and instead an interactionist approach should be taken.
Another oppositional argument against determinism, is that it can negative implications e.g. it can
excuse criminal responsibility. For example, Stephen Mobley was convicted for killing a pizza shop
manager in 1981. The evidence for him committing the crime was clear however, his defence argued
in court that he was genetically predisposed to carrying out the crime and they used research about
low levels of MAOA and links to offender behaviour to support their point. This case highlighted the
negative implications of determinism as by completely ignoring the role of free will and motivation,
it takes away accountability from people’s actions which can lead to a lack of justice.
An argument for free will is that the concept has face validity. For example, our everyday
experiences show how we exercise our free will through all the choices we make. Also, research
suggests that people that have a high LOC, believe that they have a high degree of influence over
events and their own behaviour, tend to be more mentally healthy. Robert et al (2002) found in a
study that adolescents with had a strong belief in fatalism, were more at risk of developing
depression. Therefore, not only does free will have face validity, but it can also be a strong predictor
of good mental health. However there are arguments against free will as some believe it’s just an
illusion. Libet et al found that when deciding whether to move a finger in a task, the motor region in
the brain becomes active beforehand suggesting thathuman behaviour is pre-determined and that
free will is just an illusion.
Overall, there is evidence to support both sides on the argument, therefore a soft
determinism/interactionist approach may be a better approach to take as behaviour seems to be
pre-determined to some extent but human beings still exercise free will daily.
Determinism is the belief that behaviour is influenced by internal and external factors. There are two
sides of determinism, known as hard and soft determinism. Hard determinism is the belief that all
behaviour is predictable and there is no free will, whereas soft determinism is the belief that our
behaviour has some element of free will but is still partly influenced by internal and external factors
we cannot control. Psychologists have identified different types of determinism that influence
behaviour. For example, psychic determinism is when our behaviour is controlled by unconscious
processes and early childhood experiences. For example, Freud proposed that our early childhood
experiences, e.g. not resolving the Oedipus complex, can influence our future behaviour e.g.
developing phobias or psychotic behaviours. Biological determinism states that our behaviour is
determined by genetic influences. For example, in the genetic explanation for OCD the COMT and/or
SERT genes have been observed to cause OCD. On the other side of this debate, is the free will
argument which states that humans are self-determined, therefore we are free to make our own
decisions that shape our lives without the influence of internal and external forces. Free will can be
explained through the humanistic approach in psychology where psychologists such as Masow and
Rogers argue that free will is necessary to take responsibility for and change behaviour.
An argument against biological determinism is that behaviour cannot be entirely determined by
genetics. For instance, psychologists have used twin studies to compare the similarity of intelligence
and depression in monozygotic twins and found an 80% concordance rate in intelligence while a 40%
concordance rate for depression. The fact that the concordance rates are not 100% suggests that
genes do not entirely determine behaviour. The evidence suggests that the environmental factors
may contribute to depression and intelligence too, however the environment cannot be the sole
determining factor too suggesting a combination of genes and the environment determine
behaviour. Therefore, it is falsely presumptuous to suggest genes or the environment solely
determine behaviour and instead an interactionist approach should be taken.
Another oppositional argument against determinism, is that it can negative implications e.g. it can
excuse criminal responsibility. For example, Stephen Mobley was convicted for killing a pizza shop
manager in 1981. The evidence for him committing the crime was clear however, his defence argued
in court that he was genetically predisposed to carrying out the crime and they used research about
low levels of MAOA and links to offender behaviour to support their point. This case highlighted the
negative implications of determinism as by completely ignoring the role of free will and motivation,
it takes away accountability from people’s actions which can lead to a lack of justice.
An argument for free will is that the concept has face validity. For example, our everyday
experiences show how we exercise our free will through all the choices we make. Also, research
suggests that people that have a high LOC, believe that they have a high degree of influence over
events and their own behaviour, tend to be more mentally healthy. Robert et al (2002) found in a
study that adolescents with had a strong belief in fatalism, were more at risk of developing
depression. Therefore, not only does free will have face validity, but it can also be a strong predictor
of good mental health. However there are arguments against free will as some believe it’s just an
illusion. Libet et al found that when deciding whether to move a finger in a task, the motor region in
the brain becomes active beforehand suggesting thathuman behaviour is pre-determined and that
free will is just an illusion.
Overall, there is evidence to support both sides on the argument, therefore a soft
determinism/interactionist approach may be a better approach to take as behaviour seems to be
pre-determined to some extent but human beings still exercise free will daily.
