Freewill vs Determinism In Psychology

Determinism

The determinist approach proposes that all behavior has a cause and is thus predictable. Free will is an illusion, and our behavior is governed by internal or external forces over which we have no control.

Don’t confuse predictability with determinism entirely; unpredictability doesn’t automatically equal free will (it could just be complexity or randomness).

External Determinism

External (environmental) determinism sees the cause of behavior as being outside the individual, such as parental influence, the media, or school.

Approaches that adopt this position include behaviorism and social learning theory.

For example, Bandura (1961) showed that children become aggressive through observation and imitation of their violent parents.

Internal Determinism

The biological perspective assumes behavior is largely controlled by internal biological factors – genes, brain neurochemistry, hormones, etc.

For instance, the biological approach explains mental illness in terms of genetic predispositions or brain imbalances, implying these cause symptoms beyond the person’s control.

It is internal, not external, forces that are the determining factor.

According to sociobiology, evolution governs the behavior of a species and the genetic inheritance that of each individual within it.

For example, Bowlby (1969) states a child has an innate (i.e., inborn) need to attach to one main attachment figure (i.e., monotropy).

High concordance rates in identical twins for certain disorders (e.g. schizophrenia) point to biological causes.

Personality traits like extraversion or neuroticism and the behavior associated with them are triggered by neurological and hormonal processes within the body.

There is no need for the concept of an autonomous human being.

Ultimately this view sees us as no more than biological machines, and even consciousness itself is interpreted as a level of arousal in the nervous system.

Psychic Determinism

Freud also viewed behavior as being controlled from inside the individual through unconscious motivation or childhood events, known as psychic determinism.

For example, a person’s adult relationship problems might be traced to repressed trauma or fixations in early psychosexual stages.

Freud used this principle to explain phenomena like slips of the tongue, dreams, and symptoms of mental disorders, arguing that they all have meaningful explanations rooted in the individual’s unconscious mind.

However, Freud also believed people could gain freedom through psychoanalysis: by bringing unconscious conflicts to awareness, a person might overcome those psychological determinants.

Neo-Freudians like Erich Fromm argued that while many people let their lives be governed by unconscious forces or external circumstances, everyone has the potential to take control of their life and choose between good and evil if they overcome their fears​.

Thus, psychodynamic theory is deterministic about the causes of behavior, but not fatalistic – therapy can restore some free will.

Different levels of determinism

Hard Determinism (no free will at all)

Hard determinism sees free will as an illusion and believes that every event and action has a cause.

Behaviorists are strong believers in hard determinism. Their most forthright and articulate spokesman has been B. F. Skinner. Concepts like “free will” and “motivation” are dismissed as illusions that disguise the real causes of human behavior.

In Skinner’s scheme of things, the person who commits a crime has no real choice. (S)he is propelled in this direction by environmental circumstances and a personal history, which makes breaking the law natural and inevitable.

For the law-abiding, an accumulation of reinforcers has the opposite effect. Having been rewarded for following rules in the past, the individual does so in the future.

There is no moral evaluation or even mental calculation involved. All behavior is under stimulus control.

Skinner insisted that even when we think we are choosing freely, our decision can be traced to environmental causes we may not recognize.

Soft Determinism (some choice within constraints)

Soft determinism represents a middle ground, people do have a choice, but that choice is constrained by external or internal factors.

In soft determinism, causal factors make certain behaviors more likely but don’t force one inevitable outcome. While behavior is often predictable, it is not inevitable – we can choose among options, though our choices are restricted.

For example, being poor doesn’t make you steal, but it may make you more likely to take that route through desperation.

Soft determinism suggests that some behaviors are more constrained than others and that there is an element of free will in all behavior.

However, a problem with determinism is that it is inconsistent with society’s ideas of responsibility and self-control that form the basis of our moral and legal obligations.

An additional limitation concerns the fact that psychologists cannot predict a person’s behavior with 100% accuracy due to the complex interaction of variables that can influence behavior.

Cognitive psychologists often assume some determinism (since mental processes follow patterns and can be scientifically studied), but they also see people as capable of reflecting and overriding some influences through thought.

Behavior is somewhat predictable (e.g. based on schemas or biases) yet individuals can exert control by thinking differently (as used in therapies like CBT).

The cognitive approach thus bridges free will and determinism: we have agency to decide, but our decisions operate within constraints of brain processing and past experience.

Freewill

Free will is the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act and assumes that we are free to choose our behavior. In other words, we are self-determined.

For example, people can make a free choice as to whether to commit a crime or not (unless they are a child or they are insane).

This does not mean that behavior is random, but we are free from the causal influences of past events. According to free will a person is responsible for their own actions.

One of the main assumptions of the humanistic approach is that humans have free will; not all behavior is determined. Personal agency is the humanistic term for the exercise of free will.

Personal agency refers to the choices we make in life, the paths we go down, and their consequences.

For humanistic psychologists such as Maslow (1943) and Rogers (1951), freedom is not only possible but also necessary if we are to become fully functional human beings.

Both see self-actualization as a unique human need and form of motivation setting us apart from all other species. There is, thus, a line to be drawn between the natural and the social sciences.

To take a simple example, when two chemicals react, there is no sense in imagining that they could behave in any other way than the way they do.

However, when two people come together, they could agree, fall out, come to a compromise, start a fight, and so on.

The permutations are endless, and in order to understand their behavior, we would need to understand what each party to the relationship chooses to do.

Ranged against the deterministic psychologies of those who believe that what “is” is inevitable are, therefore, those who believe that human beings have the ability to control their own destinies.

However, there is also an intermediate position that goes back to the psychoanalytic psychology of Sigmund Freud.

At first sight, Freud seems to be a supporter of determinism in that he argued that our actions and our thoughts are controlled by the unconscious.

However, the very goal of therapy was to help the patient overcome that force. Indeed without the belief that people can change therapy itself makes no sense.

This insight has been taken up by several neo-Freudians. One of the most influential has been Erich Fromm (1941).

In “Fear of Freedom,” he argues that all of us have the potential to control our own lives but that many of us are too afraid to do so.

As a result, we give up our freedom and allow our lives to be governed by circumstances, other people, political ideologies, or irrational feelings.

However, determinism is not inevitable, and in the very choice we all have to do good, or evil, Fromm sees the essence of human freedom.

Key Studies and Evidence in the Debate

Research across psychology provides evidence both for determinism and for elements of free will. Here are several influential studies and findings relevant to the free will–determinism debate:

Libet’s Free Will Neuroscience Experiment (1983):

Benjamin Libet’s famous study is a cornerstone in this debate.

Libet recorded participants’ brain activity (EEG) while they freely decided to flick their wrist at a moment of their choosing.

Participants noted the clock time at which they felt the intention to move.

Libet discovered that a characteristic brain signal, the Readiness Potential (RP), appeared about 550 milliseconds before the actual movement, and crucially about 350–400 ms before the person became aware of their decision (their conscious “will” to move)​

​In other words, the brain “decided” roughly 0.35 seconds before the person consciously knew they decided.

Libet’s data shows the timeline: the onset of the readiness potential at about -550 ms, the person’s reported moment of decision (“W-time”) around -200 ms, and the action at 0 ms.

This finding challenges the notion of free will, suggesting that what we experience as a conscious decision might actually be an after-the-fact awareness of a decision the brain has already initiated unconsciously​.

Libet himself interpreted that free will might still intervene in a last-moment “veto” capacity, but this is debated.

Twin and Adoption Studies (Nature vs Nurture):

Decades of research with twins provide insight into genetic determinism.

For example, identical twins (100% same genes) often show much higher concordance on traits than fraternal twins (50% same genes).

A classic finding: identical twin pairs have about an 80% similarity in intelligence scores, compared to lower for non-identical twins​.

Similarly, identical twins have around 40% concordance in depression risk, vs ~20% in fraternal.

These patterns suggest a strong genetic component.

Another example: Gottesman’s meta-analysis for schizophrenia found ~48% risk for an identical twin of a patient vs ~17% for a fraternal twin, implying genes play a major role.

However, these studies also show genes are not destiny – concordance is not 100%.

The fact that in Gottesman’s data ~52% of identical twins did not develop schizophrenia despite having the same genes and upbringing indicates an important role of other factors (environment or individual choices)​

Likewise, that 20% of IQ variance seemed due to environment in identical twins points to an interplay.

Conclusion: Twin studies strongly support biological determinism (genes have a big causal impact) but also support a soft determinism or interactionist view (genes set limits, yet environment and perhaps personal agency fill in the rest).

Behaviorist Experiments (Environmental Shaping):

Classic behaviorist studies demonstrate how the environment determines behavior:

• Pavlov (1902): Taught dogs to salivate at a bell by pairing it with food. This showed how a natural reflex could be determined by an external stimulus (conditioned response) – supporting environmental determinism.
• Watson & Rayner (1920) – “Little Albert”: Conditioned a toddler to fear a white rat by pairing it with loud clanging noises. Albert’s acquired fear of furry objects illustrated how even emotions can be environmentally determined through associative learning. Albert had no choice in this; the environment (loud noise) produced the fear.
• B.F. Skinner’s Operant Conditioning (1930s–50s): Skinner trained pigeons and rats to perform complex actions (like pressing levers or pecking specific keys) by carefully controlling rewards. His work demonstrated that behavior follows schedules of reinforcement. 

These studies collectively support the deterministic view that environmental contingencies “program” behavior.

In therapy too, behavior modification techniques based on these principles (token economies, systematic desensitization) effectively change behavior by manipulating causes, not by appealing to free choice.

• Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1961, 1963): Albert Bandura’s Bobo doll experiments showed children an adult model behaving aggressively toward a Bobo doll.

  Children who observed this were more likely to imitate the aggressive actions when given a chance to play, especially if the model was rewarded.

  This experiment provided evidence for observational learning and introduced Bandura’s concept of reciprocal determinism.

  However, Bandura also noted that children don’t imitate blindly; cognitive processes (attention, retention, motivation) mediate this. He proposed that personal factors, behavior, and environment all influence one another (reciprocal determinism), implying an interactionist stance.

  The study is key evidence that while environment influences behavior (supporting determinism), individuals also interpret and choose whether to imitate (hinting at cognitive free will component).

Freudian Slips and Psychodynamic Evidence:

While not “experiments” in the traditional sense, Freud’s case studies and observations underpin psychic determinism.

Freud documented numerous instances of patients’ slips of the tongue, dreams, and neurotic symptoms, arguing that these ostensibly accidental or random behaviors had determinable unconscious causes.​

For example, a famous anecdote is the man who intended to compliment his host’s “wife” but instead said “your life is really delicious”.

Freud would interpret the slip as revealing an unconscious attraction to the host’s wife. Such evidence is admittedly interpretative, but Freud amassed a large body of such analyses to claim every behavior has meaning.

Additionally, psychodynamic therapy outcomes can be seen as evidence in this debate: by bringing unconscious motivations to light, patients often change their behavior (e.g. overcoming a phobia once its root conflict is resolved).

This could be seen as restoring free will (the person is no longer unknowingly driven by a hidden cause) or conversely as just replacing one deterministic cause with another (conscious insight now determines behavior).

Either way, Freud’s work supports that unconscious determinants are powerful, even if we don’t consciously realize them.

Locus of Control Studies (Rotter, 1966 & later):

Research on locus of control classifies people on a spectrum from internal (believing they control their fate) to external (believing outcomes are controlled by outside forces).

Generally, an internal locus (akin to a belief in free will/personal control) correlates with better outcomes: higher achievement, better coping with stress, and proactive behavior.

An external locus (believing in deterministic fate or luck) correlates with anxiety, depression, and passivity.

For instance, studies find that internals are more likely to wear seatbelts, quit smoking, or seek information – they act as if their choices matter.

Externals might not bother, seeing it as “whatever happens, happens.”

These findings don’t prove whether free will exists, but they show that people’s belief in control versus determinism affects their actions.

It adds weight to the argument that in psychology (and life), perceiving oneself as a free agent is beneficial.

Implications

The free will vs determinism debate has far-reaching implications for psychology, ethics, and our broader understanding of human behavior. Below are key evaluation points and why this debate matters:

Scientific Rigor vs. Human Complexity:

A determinist approach in psychology is praised for being scientific – by assuming behavior has causes, psychologists can employ experiments, gather data, and form theories (e.g. about how anxiety is caused by neurotransmitters or conditioning).

This has led to effective treatments (drugs, behavioral interventions) and lends psychology credibility as a science.

However, critics argue that an overly deterministic, scientific approach may oversimplify human behavior.

Humans have self-consciousness, goals, and creativity, which hard science models struggle to capture.

Hard determinism might work well in physics, but applying it to human thought could strip away important aspects like meaning and subjective experience.

Thus, there’s a tension: determinism contributes to scientific advancement, but psychology also risks losing sight of phenomena (like spontaneous insight or genuine choice) that might not fit a deterministic mold.

Therapeutic Approaches:

The stance one takes in this debate can influence therapeutic strategy.

For instance, behaviorists (determinists) focus on altering environmental contingencies states (e.g. reinforcement schedules) because they see those as the real causes of behavior.

Biological theories (determinists) posit genes, brain structure, neurochemistry, etc. dictate behavior, can typcially use drugs to control behavior.

On the other hand, therapies influenced by free will (like humanistic therapy) emphasize empowering the client to make choices, self-reflect, and take responsibility for improvement.

Effectiveness can be found in both: drugs can alleviate symptoms by addressing determined biological causes, and client centred therapy can help a client feel more in control and actually lead to changes.

Many clinicians adopt a pragmatic compatibilism – acknowledging the role of determinants (so they remove barriers, e.g. detoxifying an addict’s body) and encouraging patient agency (having the addict commit to change and practice coping skills).

The debate reminds therapists to consider: Are we treating the person as an active agent or just a product of causes?

Most agree that instilling a sense of control (even if an illusion) is often beneficial in treatment.

Ethical and Legal Responsibility:

If we lean too far into determinism, accountability might be undermined.

This has real implications: for example, in forensic psychology and the legal system.

Is a criminal act the result of free choice, or was it “destined” by the person’s genetics and upbringing?

The legal system mostly operates on a compatibilist assumption – people have enough free will to be responsible, except in special circumstances (insanity, coercion, immaturity) where we decide their free will was compromised. 

Psychologically, this is reflected in how we assess defendants (evaluating their state of mind, intentions, ability to understand right/wrong).

A current implication is the use of the “warrior gene” (MAOA gene linked to aggression) as a defense in court – a few cases have argued a genetic predisposition to violence should mitigate responsibility.

So far, courts have been reluctant to accept that argument wholesale, precisely because of the slippery slope (many worry it sets a precedent where nobody could be guilty since “my brain made me do it”).

Thus, in practice, a balance is struck: acknowledge influences (maybe use them to inform rehabilitation or sentencing leniency) but maintain the concept of choice for legal and moral purposes​.

Implications for Society and Personal Attitudes:

On a societal level, this debate influences things like educational approaches and social policy.

If one assumes determinism (e.g. that outcomes in life are determined by social background), one might focus on changing environment structures – like improving schools, reducing poverty (since these will determine better behavior and success).

If one assumes free will, one might focus on teaching personal accountability, discipline, and allowing individuals to rise above their circumstances.

In reality, successful policies often consider both: provide supportive environments and encourage personal effort.

On a personal level, one’s belief in free will or determinism can affect motivation.

Believing in free will tends to encourage effort (“I can do this if I choose to”), whereas a deterministic outlook can sometimes lead to fatalism (“What’s the point, it’s out of my hands”).

However, determinism can also foster compassion – if we recognize someone’s struggles are largely due to factors beyond their control (like trauma or mental illness), we might respond with empathy rather than blame.

Thus, the debate also informs our attitudes toward others (blame vs. understand) and ourselves (empowerment vs. acceptance of limits).

Middle-Ground Resolution:

Many psychologists take an interactionist or compatibilist approach as a resolution. 

• Acknowledge that behavior has causes (so we continue researching genetic markers, neural correlates, reinforcement histories, etc.),
• But also acknowledge that humans exercise choice in how we respond to these influences, and this choice can be considered “free enough” for personal responsibility.
• Embrace that both levels of explanation are useful: a biological level (deterministic) and a psychological level (intentional stance). They don’t necessarily contradict because they operate in different explanatory frameworks.

Thus, the debate evolves into questions like “to what extent are we free, and under what conditions?” rather than a yes/no dichotomy.

The interactionist approach essentially says freedom exists in a constrained form – we’re not absolutely free, but neither are we absolutely determined. This middle path aligns with common sense and is increasingly supported by multidisciplinary evidence.

For example, the diathesis-stress model in psychopathology is often cited: a genetic predisposition (diathesis) may be present, but whether a disorder manifests often depends on an environmental trigger (stress) and the individual’s coping responses.

For example, not everyone with a genetic risk for depression becomes depressed; it might require a stressful life event to activate it.

Conversely, a person with no particular predisposition might still develop depression after extreme stress. 

This model underscores that neither the “internal cause” nor the “external cause” alone is sufficient. It’s deterministic in a broad sense (both the diathesis and stress are causes), but because both must coincide, there is a sense of contingency.

One might argue there’s room for personal coping strategies (a form of free will) to buffer the stress effect, again inserting personal agency into the causal network.

By adopting this middle ground, psychology can remain scientific (seeking causes) while still valuing the agency of individuals.

It’s an ongoing dialogue: areas like cognitive neuroscience and philosophy of mind continue to explore how “volition” can be understood in a causally governed brain.

The consensus in contemporary psychology leans toward soft determinism – recognizing lawful influences on behavior but not eliminating the concept of personal choice altogether.

References

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross,S.A (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Chorney, M. J., Chorney, K., Seese, N., Owen, M. J., Daniels, J., McGuffin, P., … & Plomin, R. (1998). A quantitative trait locus associated with cognitive ability in children. Psychological Science, 9(3), 159-166.

Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom.

Gottesman, I.I. (1991). Schizophrenia genesis: The origins of madness. New York: Freeman.

Libet, B., Wright Jr, E. W., & Gleason, C. A. (1983). Preparation-or intention-to-act, in relation to pre-event potentials recorded at the vertex. Electroencephalography and clinical Neurophysiology, 56(4), 367-372.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. London: Constable.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.