Psychology as a Science/Free Will & Determinism

“Psychology as a Science”
&
“Free Will and Determinism”
(Applied to Pro and Anti Social Behaviour)

This essay will look to analyse and evaluate two of the major debates in psychology. In the first half of the essay the question ‘Is psychology a science?’ will be discussed and arguments for and against will be looked at. In the second part of the essay the debate ‘Free Will versus Determinism’ will be discussed and applied to Pro and Anti Social Behaviour.
Psychology, according to Gross (2009:4) is literally “…the study of the mind”, derived from the Greek words ‘psyche’ which translates as mind, soul or spirit and ‘logos’ meaning knowledge or study. However, this definition is far too simplistic and throughout history many well known theorists have debated its true meaning.
Early philosophers such as Boring and Aristotle claimed psychology was the study of human nature and ‘a science of the soul’, others such as Titchner argued that it was more of a ‘science of the mind’ and more recently J.B. Watson disagreed that it was in fact ‘the science of behaviour’ (Aqsa, n.d.).
However, it is probably better not to get too embroiled in the philosophical debate, and instead to look at the main aims of psychology. There are five basic goals within the discipline of psychology; to describe (through objective observation), to explain (why the subject acted in a particular way), to predict (if you know what and why behaviour happens now, you can hypothesize about future behaviour), to control (the behaviour) and finally to improve (to control the behaviour in a constructive manner). Furthermore, psychologists, in order to achieve the afore-mentioned goals, use various methods to do so depending on the subject matter, whether they favour psychoanalytic, cognitive, behaviourist or biological approaches (AllPsych, 2011).
Consequently, if these are the basic goals of psychology, can they be done so scientifically? In order to answer this it would be useful to look at the definition of science. According to some, science should be about “…Empirical evidence, objectivity, control over variables, predictability, hypothesis testing and replication”. Therefore, emphasis is placed on distinguishing the scientific method from other explanations using orderly experimentation (simplypsychology.com, 2008)
So, if the aim of science is to use a systematic process in order to gain an understanding of cause and effect relationships, then it should be possible to apply this method to psychology, as it aims for similar outcomes. Psychology certainly meets the criteria of what constitutes a science, it uses logical and objective methods, verifies its findings and it definitely looks at cause and effect relationships in order to produce universal laws of behaviour. But is this enough to call it a science?
It is perhaps useful to look at the contributions psychological research has made in order to see how it uses the scientific method to explain behaviour. Studies such as The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) by Philip Zimbardo highlighted the powerful role that the situation plays in human behaviour and recently gained attention when reports came through of prisoner abuses in Abu Ghraib in Iraq, and which demonstrated real-world examples of Zimbardo’s research. (Cherry, 2011). However, Zimbardo’s work is often criticised for ethical reasons as well as for its lack of ecological validity, further adding to the debate of whether psychology should be regarded as a true science.
Similarly Cherry (2011) describes the Asch Conformity Experiments, which showed that participants conformed to incorrect answers so as not to be ridiculed or because they believed the others must be correct and which remains one of the most famous in psychology history. The experiments went on to inspire further research on why people conform and the effects of pressure on behaviour.
These, and other psychological experiments have been extremely beneficial in our understanding of human behaviour, but as behaviour is complex and ever-changing, and the cognitive processes unobservable, can we call psychology an exact science? Although it strives to be as near to the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry as possible, it seems unlikely to ever fully meet all the requirements.
For many years, experimentation within psychology endeavoured to be like the natural sciences as it was believed to be the only way to lend credibility to psychological research. Terms such as ‘scientism’ are used to describe “…the borrowing of methods and characteristic vocabulary from the natural sciences in order to discover causal mechanisms that explain psychological phenomena” (Van Langenhove, 1995 in Gross, 2009:40). Nevertheless, there are still many more who argue that psychology does not fit in with the ‘normal science’ paradigm, and Kuhn (1970) further stated that psychology was more of a ‘pre-science’ as no dominant paradigm has evolved. Although others, such as Palermo (1971) believe that psychology has in fact been through several paradigm shifts, such as behaviourism and introspection, in which case it would have passed through the revolutionary stage to be considered a science (Hill, 2009:18).
That being said, perhaps psychology should not be called a science as some of the theories are not falsifiable and according to Karl Popper (1959), scientific theories should be able to be shown wrong as it is better to falsify than support them (Hill, 2009).
This debate may continue until perhaps one day a universal law to explain human behaviour is found, but while psychological hypotheses and experimentation follow the scientific route and lend credence to psychology as a science, case studies and naturalistic observations, which in themselves can produce extensive and valuable information, are less scientific. However, they are necessary as many issues of psychological interest cannot be studies artificially in laboratory conditions.
Another ongoing debate in psychology is that of free will versus determinism, one that has also been discussed by theorist for many years.
Free will can be quite difficult to define, John Locke explained free will by telling the story of a man who wakes up in a room, which is locked from the outside but he does not know this. The man decides to stay in the room, and believes he made his choice freely, however he had no other option but by not knowing this he had an illusion of freedom (Religious Studies Online, 2011).
The concept of free will suggests that individuals can act autonomously according to their own wishes and wants and furthermore can plan their own actions depending on their goals. But are we ever truly free to make our own choices? Or is it as Locke describes ‘an illusion’? Those who agree with Locke take the deterministic view of behaviour and …”the positivistic, mechanistic nature of scientific psychology implies that behaviour is determined by external (or internal) events or stimuli, and that people are passive responders.” (Gross, 2009:888). That is to say, determinists believe that all events will be ultimately determined by sources external to the will, and we in fact have no free will nor say in any event or human action.
It is therefore clear to see that free will views and deterministic views are poles apart, however there must be a middle ground and this is where many opt for the ‘soft determinism’ explanation to behaviour, which suggests that in fact behaviour can be both free and caused by events. William James (1890) identified the difference between “hard” and “soft” determinism. He argued that “soft determinists hold that all events, including human decisions, are determined, but that some kind of freedom and moral responsibility also exists” (James, 1955 in Frame, 2005:para2). Therefore, although soft determinists or ‘compatibilists’ still agree that events are determined, they argue that, at the same time, we still have enough freedom to be morally responsible for our behaviour.
It is not enough for psychologists to know the meanings of free will and determinism; they also want to be able to relate the concepts to behaviour. Aggression, “… any behaviour that is hostile, destructive, and/or violent, (and) which has the potential to inflict injury or damage to the target person or object…” (Salters-Pedneault, 2009), is one such type of behaviour that has been studied by psychologists rigorously, and the majority of approaches favour the deterministic view. The biological perspective argues that genetics, chemical reactions in the brain and the nervous system are physical processes and as such are governed by the laws of physics, i.e. the brain is regarded as a machine which does not possess free will. If this is the case, it then makes a mockery of our legal system which is based on the premise of free will and moral responsibility. Furthermore there has been numerous studies suggesting brain functioning can impair neurological processes, and Raine, Buchsbaum & LaCasse (1996) were able to use PET scans to compare brain activity in 41 violent offenders and an equal amount of age related control subjects. They found that those convicted of murder and pleading not guilty for reasons of insanity had abnormal cortical and sub cortical brain processes (Raine, Buchsbaum & Lacasse, 1996). Similarly, Charles Whitman, the sniper at the University of Texas Tower, was found to have a tumour pressing into his amygdale – a structure in the limbic system linked to aggression. He left behind a note begging his brain be examined for a dysfunction of some kind (Schaffhausen, n.d.).
However, it is also important to look at external factors which may influence and determine behaviour. Baron & Ransberger examined over one hundred riots in the US between 1967 and 1971 and concluded that the tendency for violence increases as temperatures rise (Carlsmith & Anderson, 1979). Not only does temperature and noise influence behaviour, but studies have shown that often aggressive behaviour is imitated. Bandura (1973, 1977), suggested that humans are not born with a large array of aggressive responses, rather they are acquired over time, by direct experience or observation, further giving credence to the argument that behaviour is determined (Gross, 2009).
Additionally, pro social behaviour has been studied and has returned similar results to the biological and environmental influences found with aggression. Nevertheless, a selfless act towards a stranger somewhat confuses the biological view that we have innate tendencies to help protect our own for the survival of our genes (Gross, 2009).
It is perhaps relevant to mention at this stage that, although it seems that all psychological perspectives take a deterministic view of pro and anti social behaviour, the humanistic approach does not, preferring to believe we all have free will to make our own choices and that people are on the whole good (McLeod, 2007).
Consequently, the free will and determinism debate has had an important influence in contemporary psychology and has mostly dictated what individual theorists believe to be true, which then in turn, will influence what and how they conduct their research.
Psychologists may realise that the free will and determinism debate will never be resolved and have therefore concentrated on the matter-of-fact issues such as why people believe they have free will. Recent research by Baumeister, Masicampo and DeWall (2009), centred on the theory that free will may be the reason why humans treat each other with respect. During a series of three studies on pro and anti social behaviour they reported that participants, who had a belief or had recently read a passage on free will, were more likely to display helpful behaviour than those who supported determinism. A subsequent study on aggression returned similar findings, with those being directed towards determinism showing aggressive tendencies when making someone else something to eat (adding twice as much hot sauce) than those who were directed towards free will thinking (Psyblog, n.d.).
One may say that it is impossible for everything to be determined; that there must be at least some free will present within; however psychology aims to be scientific and by doing so must adhere to the cause and effect rules which are strictly deterministic in principle. That being said, if anti social acts such as aggression are indeed deterministic, then this will have implications as to whether people should be convicted of such acts. Surely if their behaviour is determined by biological or environmental factors then they should not be held responsible for their behaviour, as numerous psychological studies have shown that there are conditions and illnesses which will inevitably control an individual’s behaviour (revisionworld, 2012).
Similarly, if people’s behaviour was governed by free will only, then there would be no possibility of predicting future behaviour, no patterns would be found and no treatments available. But, there are patterns and future behaviour can be predicted and treated successfully, therefore there must be more at work than simple free will (Connor, n.d.).
As mentioned previously with the Baumeister, Masicampo and DeWall (2009) experiments, the very notion that we have free will is enough to make us act more altruistically, and whether we do or do not have is inconsequential. Similarly, if there is no such thing as free will, if we at the end of the day have no control over anything, then who should be held responsible for the things we like and do, and the things that happen to us?
In conclusion, many questions remain unanswered such as are all things i.e. human traits, behaviours and actions predetermined, or is everything merely the effect of previously carried out actions? If we agree with the majority of the psychological perspectives, then we would have to say that everything must be deterministic and this forms the basis of the scientific approach, however, perhaps this debate is a form or antinomy or paradox and no answer is to be found.

References
Allpsych.com, (2011). What is Psychology? Available: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/intro.html. Last accessed 4th January 2012.
Aqsa, Z., (n.d.). What is Psychology? Available: http://shiasisters.net/articles_submissions/what_is_psychology.html. Last accessed 2nd January 2012.
Carlsmith, J.M., Anderson, C.A., (1979). Ambient Temperature and the Occurrence of Collective Violence: A New Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (3), p337-344. Available: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/1979-1984/79ca.pdf. Last accessed 13th January 2012.
Cherry, K., (n.d.). The Asch Conformity Experiments. Available: http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/p/conformity.htm. Last accessed 3rd January 2012.
Cherry, K., (n.d.). The Stanford Prison Experiment An Experiment in the Psychology of Imprisonment. Available: http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm. Last accessed 3rd January 2012.
Connor, J., (n.d.). Debate: Free Will and Determinism in Human Behaviour. Available: http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupId=1056421&ResourceID=3435870. Last accessed 18th January 2012.
Frame, J.M., (2005). Determinism, Chance and Freedom. Available: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Determinism.htm. Last accessed 10th January 2012.
Gross, R., (2009). Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour. 5th ed. Oxon: Hodder Arnold. p4, 888.
Hill, G., (2009). AS & A Level Psychology Through Diagrams. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p18-19.
McLeod, S., (2007). Humanism. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/humanistic.html. Last accessed 10th January 2012.
McLeod, S., (2008). Psychology as a Science. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html. Last accessed 22nd December 2011.
Psyblog. Com, (n.d.). Do You Believe in Free Will?. Available: http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/01/do-you-believe-in-free-will.php. Last accessed 17th January 2012.
Raine, A. Buchsbaum, M. Lacasse, L., (1997). Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomography. Biological Psychiatry. 42 (6), p495-508. Available: http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223%2896%2900362-9/abstract
Revisionworld.com, (2012). Problems with Free Will and Determinism. Available: http://www.revisionworld.co.uk/level/psychology/issues-and-debates-psychology/free. Last accessed 17th January 2012.
Salters-Pedneault, K., (2009). What is Aggression? Available: http://bpd.about.com/od/glossary/g/aggression.htm. Last accessed 12th January 2012.
Schaffhausen, J., (n.d.). The Biological Basis of Aggression. Available: http://brainconnection.positscience.com/topics/?main=fa/aggression. Last accessed 17th January 2012.

References: Allpsych.com, (2011). What is Psychology? Available: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/intro.html. Last accessed 4th January 2012. Frame, J.M., (2005). Determinism, Chance and Freedom. Available: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Determinism.htm. Last accessed 10th January 2012. Gross, R., (2009). Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour. 5th ed. Oxon: Hodder Arnold. p4, 888. Hill, G., (2009). AS & A Level Psychology Through Diagrams. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p18-19. McLeod, S., (2007). Humanism. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/humanistic.html. Last accessed 10th January 2012. McLeod, S., (2008). Psychology as a Science. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html. Last accessed 22nd December 2011. Salters-Pedneault, K., (2009). What is Aggression? Available: http://bpd.about.com/od/glossary/g/aggression.htm. Last accessed 12th January 2012.