Freewill/determinism

What you'll learn

• What psychologists mean by free will and determinism.
• The main positions: hard determinism, soft determinism, and free will.
• How OCR core studies can illustrate different sides of the debate.
• How to compare this debate with other debates such as nature/nurture, reductionism/holism, and individual/situational explanations.

The basic issue: are we choosing, or are we caused?

The freewill/determinism debate asks a simple but deep question: to what extent is human behaviour freely chosen, and to what extent is it caused by factors outside our control?

In psychology, this matters because psychologists often try to explain, predict, and sometimes change behaviour. If behaviour is caused, then psychology can search for patterns and causes. If behaviour is freely chosen, prediction becomes harder, but personal responsibility becomes more central.

It is helpful to see the debate as a continuum, not just two extreme boxes.

Hard determinism

Hard determinism is the strongest deterministic position. It argues that all behaviour is caused by prior factors, so genuine free choice is an illusion.

For example, a hard determinist might argue that obedience in Milgram’s 1963 study was caused by situational pressures: the authority figure, the Yale setting, the prods, and the gradual increase in shock levels. The participant may have felt they were choosing, but their behaviour was strongly shaped by the situation.

Types of determinism

Determinism comes in different forms depending on what kind of cause is emphasised.

Free will

A free-will position argues that people can make meaningful choices. This is especially important in humanistic psychology, associated with psychologists such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, who emphasised personal growth, self-awareness, and choice.

Free will is also important in everyday life. Legal systems, school rules, and moral judgements often assume that people could have acted differently.

A free-will interpretation of Bocchiaro, Zimbardo and Van Lange 2012 might focus on the fact that some participants disobeyed the authority figure and some became whistle-blowers. Even though the situation created pressure to obey, not everyone responded in the same way.

Soft determinism: the middle position

Soft determinism, also called compatibilism, is often the most balanced position for A-Level evaluation. It accepts that behaviour is influenced by causes, but argues that people may still make choices within limits.

For example, Milgram’s participants were clearly influenced by the authority figure and setting, but 35% did not continue to 450 volts. Similarly, in Bocchiaro et al. 2012, most participants obeyed, but some resisted. This suggests behaviour is constrained rather than mechanically fixed.

Research illustrating the debate

Milgram 1963: situational determinism

Milgram 1963 investigated obedience to authority. Participants believed they were giving electric shocks to a learner. The study showed that ordinary people could obey destructive orders under pressure from an authority figure.

This illustrates situational determinism, because behaviour was strongly influenced by the context: the laboratory, the experimenter’s authority, the gradual shock generator, and verbal prods.

Ethically, Milgram raises issues under the BPS Code of Human Research Ethics, especially protection from harm, valid consent, deception, and right to withdraw. These ethical issues matter for the debate because deterministic research can involve manipulating powerful pressures on participants.

Bandura et al. 1961: environmental determinism

Bandura, Ross and Ross 1961 found that children exposed to an aggressive adult model were more likely to imitate aggressive acts towards a Bobo doll. This supports environmental determinism because behaviour was influenced by observed models.

However, not every child behaved identically. This weakens a hard determinist conclusion and supports a softer view: social learning increases the likelihood of behaviour, rather than guaranteeing it.

Sperry 1968: biological determinism

Sperry 1968 studied split-brain patients whose corpus callosum had been severed. The research showed that behaviour and verbal reports could depend on which hemisphere received information.

This supports biological determinism because brain structure affected conscious experience and behaviour. However, it would be too extreme to claim that brain structure explains all behaviour in everyday life.

Freud 1909: psychic determinism

Freud’s 1909 study of Little Hans explained a child’s phobia of horses through unconscious conflict. This illustrates psychic determinism because behaviour is explained as caused by unconscious motives rather than conscious choice.

AO3 evaluation is important here: Freud’s case study method was rich in detail but low in generalisability, and the interpretation is difficult to test scientifically.

Applications of the debate

Criminal behaviour

A deterministic view can be useful in explaining offending. For example, biological explanations might focus on brain differences, while environmental explanations might focus on upbringing, peer influence, or reinforcement.

This can support rehabilitation, because if behaviour has causes, interventions can target those causes. However, it may reduce perceived personal responsibility.

Mental health

Deterministic approaches can lead to treatments. Biological determinism supports drug therapies; environmental determinism supports behaviour therapies; psychic determinism supports psychoanalytic therapy.

A free-will or humanistic approach may instead focus on self-understanding, personal responsibility, and the client’s capacity to choose change.

Education and behaviour management

Environmental determinism is applied in schools through reinforcement systems, praise, sanctions, and modelling. These assume behaviour can be shaped by consequences and role models.

AO3: strengths and weaknesses

Strengths of determinism

Determinism supports psychology as a science, because it encourages researchers to look for cause-and-effect relationships. If behaviour has causes, it can be studied systematically and predictions can be made.

It also has practical value. For example, if aggression is partly learned, then interventions can reduce exposure to aggressive models or reward prosocial behaviour.

Weaknesses of determinism

Hard determinism can be criticised for being too simplistic. Human behaviour is complex, and people do not always respond in the same way to the same situation.

It may also be ethically and socially sensitive. If we say a person’s behaviour was “determined”, this may reduce responsibility for harmful actions. On the other hand, it may also reduce blame for people experiencing mental illness or addiction.

Strengths of free will

Free will fits with everyday experience: people often feel they deliberate, make decisions, and choose between alternatives. It also supports ideas of moral responsibility.

Humanistic psychology can be positive and empowering because it treats people as active agents rather than passive products of causes.

Weaknesses of free will

Free will is difficult to test scientifically. If someone says, “I chose freely,” it is hard to prove that the choice was not influenced by unconscious motives, biology, or the situation.

A strong free-will view may also ignore real constraints, such as poverty, trauma, mental illness, social pressure, or brain injury.

Similarities and differences with other debates

Nature/nurture

The nature/nurture debate asks whether behaviour is mainly influenced by biological inheritance or environmental experience. It overlaps with determinism because nature can support biological determinism, while nurture can support environmental determinism.

The difference is that nature/nurture asks what kind of cause matters, while freewill/determinism asks whether behaviour is caused or chosen.

Reductionism/holism

Reductionism explains behaviour by breaking it into smaller parts, such as genes, neurons, or reinforcement schedules. Deterministic explanations are often reductionist.

Holism looks at the whole person and context. Soft determinism is often more holistic because it accepts several influences plus some agency.

Individual/situational debate

The individual/situational debate asks whether behaviour is best explained by personal factors or the situation. Milgram 1963 is a classic example of a situational explanation of obedience.

This overlaps with determinism because situational explanations often imply that behaviour is caused by external pressures.