DEBATES - FREE WILL vs DETERMINISM Flashcards
(25 cards)
define determinism
determinism – understanding that behaviour is controlled and we do not exercise free will over our own behaviour
eg. determinists would argue that if ppl commit a crime its becuase of factors outside of their control, they are not responsible
define free will
each individual has the power to make choices about their own actions/behaviour
what is self determination
part of free will approach
suggests individuals make choices that put them in ctrl of and responsible for their own actions and futures
eg. the legal system holds ppl accountable for their actions; they have chosen to break the law
in what 3 ways do free will and determinism differ from each other
levels of choice
levels of control
causality of behaviour
example 1 - free will - humanist approach
self determinination is necessary for healthy development of self and self actualisation
Roger’s CCT (1951) - the client should discover their own solutions to their problems and make choices on how to grow and develop as an individual, person comes to own choices and solutions to their problems in therapy
examples of determinism in psychology
hard and soft (look at the extent to which an approach thinks a behaviour is caused)
biol, envi and psychic (these identify factors that cause the behaviour)
what is soft determinism
•the idea that behaviour/actions/traits are to an extent governed/dictated by internal/external forces
• despite this, we still have some element of control over/some free will to control our behaviour/actions/traits etc
accepts that behav has a cause but adds some flexibility suggesting that ppl have conscious mental ctrl over their behav
(important feature of the cognitive approach)
what is hard determinism
fatalism
everything we do is governed by internal and external forces
these forces cannot be controlled by the person
compatible w/ the aims of scieence because it suggests that we should be able to identify causes of behav
what are the three main types of (hard) determinism?
psychic
biol
envi
what is psychic determinism
suggests that adult behaviour, eg anxiety, pen-chewing, tidying, relationship problems, is determined by childhood/early experiences and by innate, unconscious drives/motives
behaviour is controlled by unconscious fears, desires/ conflicts repressed in childhood
what is biol determinism
behaviour is controlled by aspects of biology eg genes, chemicals
genetics, hormones, evolution play a role in personality, health and intelligence
the NS, hormones, NTs and braain structures influence a range of behaviour
what is envi determinism
behaviour is controlled by external influences eg parents, society
Skinner (behaviourism) said free will is an ‘illusion’
what we think of free will is just a result of conditioning and reinforcement in all aspects of life eg. systems of reward and punishment
behav is shaped by events and socialising agents
example 1 - hard determinism - biol approach
aggression is caused by high lvls of testosterone or genetic predisposition (eg. MAOA) - so behav is seen as determined by biol factors not choice
example 2 - hard determinism - psychodynamic approach
unconscious conflicts (eg. the influence of the id or repressed trauma) determine adult behav - so freud saw behav as driven by unconscious fears over which we have no ctrl
example 1 - soft determinism - cognitive approach
behaviour is influenced by schemas and mental processes but individuals can reflect and make decisions - so even though there are causes, individuals can exercise ctrl over their thinking
example 2 - soft determinism - SLT
ppl learn through observation (vicarious reinf) but decide whether to imitate behav - so behav is influenced but not determined as mediational processes allow for choice
what is a causal explanation
based on the scientific notion that behaviour is caused/determined by internal/external factors – there is a cause and effect relationship
how is the determinist exp scientific
emphasises the causality of behav and that it should be predictable (cause and effect in order to make general laws about behav)
lab exp (using IV and DV) reflects attempts to ctrl and predict human behav
why is free will not compatable with science
cant be tested, controlled or manipulated in a systematic way to see its effect on behav
eg. humanist approaches emphasise free will and reject the scientific approach
AO3: fw vs det: strength: application
strength of determinism = led to range of treatments for mental disorders
identifying causes of behav is useful in devel treatments eg. behav research into the determinants of learning led to SD for phobias
NTs = examples of biol determinants eg. seratonin is a NT related to OCD leading to treatments like SSRIs which increases seratonin lvls
tf, effemctiveness of these therapies show the benefits of using determinist exps
AO3: fw vs det: strength: consistent w/ the aims of sci
det approaches believe all behav is caused and this allows general laws of bahv to be made
sci research shares this belief and contributes to such laws by testing predictions of cause and effect to gather evidence
allowing ctrld research
this can be replicated and gives data that can be analysed statistically eg. fMRI scans can be used to image brain activity when given a task
high validity
sci cred
WHEREAS fw = unsci as lacks sci ev, so goes against sci
AO3: fw vs det: strength: fw ev
fw has face validity as ppl feel they are exercising choice in their everyday lives
this is incorporated into humanist theories of psych that suggest that ppl need to be self determining and able to make choices in their life in order to be mentally and emotionally healthy
research into LoC supports thiss idea of exercising fw in relation to better MH
Roberts et al. (2000) research showed that adolescents who felt their lives were influenced by factors they couldnt ctrl = higher risk of devel depression
AO3: fw vs det: limitation: det is incompatiblle w/ legal system
legal systems hold the view that individuals have fw, make choices and can be held accountable for their behav
BUT a det stance suggests that we cant hold ppl accountable for their crimes (as they dont choose to commit them)
limited app in this context
more appropriate view of individual = adopting a soft determinist stance, to consider fw and det in offending behav
