Issues and Debates

?

Free Will and Determinism

Free Will and Determinism:

- Determinism is the view that an individual's behaviour is controlled by either internal or external forces. That all behaviour is 'caused'. This principle is a key foundation of all science. A belief in 'Free will' is at the opposite end of the spectrum, believing people are capable of self-determinism.

Psychology is predominantly a deterministic discipline, as is all of science. Because there are so many different approaches to psychology there are many different types of determinism.                  1. Biological determinism - The belief that behaviour is caused by genetics, hormones, neurotransmitters, brain structure etc. 2. Environmental determinism - The belief that behaviour is caused by some aspect of 'learning'. 3. Psychic determinism - The belief that behaviour is caused by a mix of innate drives and early experience.

By making a distinction between soft and hard determinism these two seemingly opposite perspectives can be reconciled. 

Hard determinism - The view that all behaviour can be predicted and there is no free will

Soft determinism - Internal and external forces are important and constrain our choices but we still have an element of self-determinism.

A number of people subscribe to 'soft determinism' For example: Heather proposed that behaviour may be predictable but it is not inevitable. That we are constrained by internal and external factors but not ultimately restricted by them.

1 of 5

Determinism (A03)

There is a problem in the distinction between biological and environmental determinism. For example, studies that compare identical twins find about 80% similarity on intelligence or about 40% for depression. In other words, if one twin has a high IQ, there is only an 80% chance that the other twin will be the same. Therefore genes do not entirely determine behaviour. But equally the environment doesn't entirely determine behaviour. This suggests on interactionist approach is much more effective than 'choosing' between biological or environmental determinism.

Dennett makes a strong argument that there is now no such thing as hard determinism in the physical sciences. Chaos theory proposes that very small changes in initial conditions can subsequently result in major changes, sometimes called 'The butterfly effect'. The conclusion is that causal relationships are probabilistic rather than determinist i.e. they increase the probability of something occuring rather than being the sole determinent. Determinist explanations tend to oversimplify human behaviour. They may be appropriate for non-human animals, but human behaviour is less rigid and influenced by many factors, including cognitive factors as well as biological impulses. This suggests an attempt within psychology to find a simplified deterministic formula is unrealistic and neglects the complexity of human behaviour.

In recent years there has been a worrying attempt in us courts to claim behaviour was determined by inherited aggressive tendencies. Stephen Mobley, who killed a pizza shop manager, in 1981, claimed this happened because he was 'born to kill', as evidenced by a family history of violence. The argument was rejected, and mobley was sentenced to death. Determinism is also an issue in the treatment of mental disorder. If we take the view that disorders such as schizophrenia and depression are determined by an individual's biology, then it follows that treatment should target their genes or neurotransmitters. However, this may then block the consideration of other treatments that might be beneficial, such as cognitive behavioural therapy. So a purely deterministic perspective could be seen as highly undesirable, allowing individuals to excuse their behaviour and avoid taking responsibility.

2 of 5

Free Will (A03)

It could be argued that 'choosing' between certain courses of action isn't really free will, although it might give the illusion of being so. This argument was put forward by the behaviourist B.F. Skinner his point was that a person might 'choose' to buy a particular car or see a particular film, but in fact these choices are determined by previous reinforcement experiences. Furthermore, the idea of self-determinism may be a culturally relative concept, appropriate for individualist societies only. Collectivist cultures place greater value on behaviour determined by group needs. This suggests free will might still have it's origin in socialization and experience and so not really 'free' at all.

The research by Libet et al cast serious doubt on the notion of free will. They recorded activity in motor areas of the brain before the person had a conscious awareness of the decision to move their finger. In other words, the decision to move their finger was simply a 'read out' of a predetermined action. Follow-up research confirmed the findings: for example Chun Siong Soon et al. However, other researchers have conducted similar studies and reached a different conclusion. For example, Trevena and Miller showed that the brain activity was simply a 'readiness to act' rather than an intention to move. Although other researchers question these conclusions, Libet's research suggests there may in fact be no such thing as free will at all.

3 of 5

Nature/Nurture Debate

Historically nature and nurture were viewed as independent of one another and scientists took a nature or nurture view of behaviour. However for some years now and particularly with an increased understanding of genetics, there has been recognition that they are entwined with one another and interact with one another. Known as interactionist approach. Still, different psychological approaches are more orientated towards one perspective or another and this is important to realise to aid evaluation.

Innate influences are referred to as 'nature', This doesn't simply refer to abilities present at birth but to any ability determined by genes. Environmental influences or 'nurture' are acquired through interaction with the environment. This includes both the physical and social world and may be more widely referred to as 'experience' although would include effects on an infant before birth such as a mother who smokes.

Examples of the Influence of Nature:

-Genetics: Family, twin and adoption studies show that the closer two individuals one genetically the more likelihood that they will both develop the same behaviour e.g. schizophrenia where the concordance rate for MZ twins is 40% but only 7% for DZ twins. This 'genetic link' is also a wall established relation to addictive behaviour and criminal behaviour.

- Evolutionary explanations propose that a behaviour which promotes survival and reproduction will be passed onto the next generation. Thus bowlby proposed attachment was adaptive because it meant an infant is more likely to be protected and so survive. This behaviour then becomes amplified through the generations.

Examples of the Influence of Nurture:

- Behaviourism: In the 17th century John Locke described the new born as tabula rasa or blank slate. This idea was taken on by the behaviourist approach. Skinner said that all behaviour can be explained in terms of learning through classical and operant conditiong and set out to prove, in experiments like that of 'Little Albert', that even things which seem instictive i.e. fear is actually a learned response.

Double blind theory of schizophrenia: another example of nurture theory since it suggests that schizophrenia develops in response to contradictory messages from parents e.g. saying i love you, but also looking away in disgust.

4 of 5

Nature/Nurture Debate (A03)

Evidence suggests that the interaction between nature and nurture is not as simplistic as it has sometimes been traditionally presented. Donald Hebb argued that trying to do this was the same as asking whether the length or width of a rectangle was more important when working out the area of a rectangle. They both contribute. A classic example of this is the disorder phenylketonuria, an inherited disorder that prevents the amino acids phenylanine being metabolised, resulting in brain damage if detected at birth, an infant can be given a diet devoid of phenylanine and thus brain damage is averted. If prevention can be acheived through environmental manipulation, is this condition due to nature or nurture? This evidence undermines any attempt at a simplistic nature-nurture distinction and indicates how complex the interaction between nature and nurture can be.

The diathesis stress model is arguably a far more effective way of understanding nature and nurture. This is often used to explain mental disorders such as phobias or schizophrenia. A diathesis is a biological vulnerability, such as being born with certain genes that predispose a person to developing a disorder. However, research has shown that not everyone with those genes does develop the disorder. Expression of the gene or genes depends on experience in the form of a 'stressor' which triggers the condition. Thus a person's nature is only expressed another certain conditions of nurture. This lends weight to the importance of taking an interactionist approach.

Further evidence suggests that the interaction between nature and nurture is not as simplistic as it has sometimes been traditionally presented. For example, a child who is genetically more aggressive might provoke an aggressive response in others. This response becomes part of the child's environment and affects the child's development. Robert Plomin et al called their reactive gene - environment interaction because the child is reacting to genetically influenced behaviour. Plomin et al identified a second kind of interaction - passive influence. For example, a parent with a genetically determined mental illness creates an unsettled home environment. In this case a child's mental disorder could be due to indirect, passive effects. The third kind of interaction is active influence, or what scarr and McCartney call niche picking. As children grow older, they seek out experiences and environments that suit their genes. Research has shown that the influence of genes increases as children get older, which is due to niche picking. This evidence undermines any attempt at a simplistic nature-nurture distinction and indicate how nature continues to have an ongoing influence on nurture.

There is, however some evidence that the environment can literally change our biology. For example, maguire's et al study of London taxi drivers showed that the region of their brains associated with spatial memory was bigger than in controls. The taxi drivers were not born this way; rather, their hippocampi had responded to increased use. In Blakemore and Cooper's study, newborn kittens were given large collars restricting what they could see and were raised in a circular drum with either only vertical or horizontal stripes. When introduced to the real world at five months old, they could no longer see lines of the opposite orientation. Their innate visual system had been altered through experience. This suggests Plomin's conclusions are not universally true and indicate that either nature or nurture can be the driver behind specific behaviours.

Recent research into Epigenetics lends real weight to showing how, even at a genetic level, there is ongoing interaction between nature and nurture.

5 of 5

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Issues And Debates resources »