The concept of Free will has been discussed since the very beginning of philosophy (Hajicek , [612274]

Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu
Facultatea de Științe Socio -umane
Departamentul de Jurnalism, Relații Publice, Sociologie și Psihologie Specializarea PSIHOLOGIE
Coordonator:
Prof. Univ. Dr. Eugen Iordănescu

REFERAT
FUNDAMENTELE PSIHOLOGICE ALE DEDIZIEI UMANE
Anul I II

Student: [anonimizat] : Free Will

Data: 06.11 .2016

Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu
Facultatea de Științe Socio -umane
Departamentul de Jurnalism, Relații Publice, Sociologie și Psihologie Specializarea PSIHOLOGIE
Coordonator:
Prof. Univ. Dr. Eugen Iordănescu
FREE WILL
The concept of Free will has been discussed since the very beginning of philosophy (Hajicek ,
2008). Still, the idea of people being able to make responsible choices freely is a major
assumption of many civilized countries around the world (Feldman, Wong, & Baumeister,
2016; Kane, 2009). As a result, scientists have begun to study beliefs, cognit ions and
behavioural outcomes of free will and , more accurately, of belief in free will (Feldman et.al.,
2016). They have found that people generally believe free will is an ability to make choices of
which we are responsible (Ent & Baumeister, 2014). Hajicek (2008) points th at free will is
thought to be “the ability to choose consciously an idea of an action and the carry out the
action accordingly”.
The concept itself is rather hard to define scientifically, it belongs mainly to the field of
philosophy. Most scientists, mostly in the field of cognitive and social psychology, have
focused on the belief of free will. According to Rigoni, Kühn, Gaudino, Sartori, & Brass
(2012) claim that believing in free will is the feeling that humans are able to exercise control
over one’s own behaviour. It has been proven that believe in free will has got am effect on
cognitions (processing information) and behaviour (e.g. cooperative behaviour) (Feldman
et.al., 2016; Ent & Baumaister, 2014). Moreover, believing in free will may be related to
bodily states such as medical disorders. Diseases such as panic disorders or epilepsy, that
make the patient feel like losing co ntrol, may lower his or her belief in free will (Ent &
Baumeiter, 2014).
On one hand, some scientists belief in free will (which ca n be measured) promotes prosocial
responsible and moral behaviour (Feldman, Wong, & Baumeister, 2016). Also, Protzko,
Ouimette & Schooler (2016) have shown that dis believing in fre e will leads to uncooperative
behaviour by affecting automatic and intuitive mental responses or System 1 as defined by
Kahneman (2011), so the individual end s up acting on his or her own interest. Thus, Feldman
(2016) be lieves that free will underlines the importance of being able to learn, to improve
behaviour and to act differently (if the outcomes in the past were not the desired) in order to
reach one’s ta rgets, and to take responsibility for one’s own actio ns. Belief in free will is
thought to be associated with greater self -efficacy (Baumeister & Brewer, 2012 as cited in

Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu
Facultatea de Științe Socio -umane
Departamentul de Jurnalism, Relații Publice, Sociologie și Psihologie Specializarea PSIHOLOGIE
Coordonator:
Prof. Univ. Dr. Eugen Iordănescu
Feldman et.al., 2016), better academic performance (Feldman, Chandrashekar, & Wong,
2016, as cited in Feldman et.al., 2016) and higher perceived capacity for decision making
(Feldman, Baumeister, & Wong, 2014, as cited in Feldman et.al., 2016). These findings
suggest that free will, or at least the belief in free will (which can be measured) have a
positive impact on human beings by helping us to put into balance outcomes and adapt our
behaviour. It is also thought that free will influences our social interactions because at least a
small amount of belief in free will is required for having healthy relationships with others and
with oneself (Kane, 1996, as cited in Kane, 2009).
Feltz & Cova (2014) suggest that free will may be compatible with the determinism, even if
the two concepts seem to be opposite. Based on their study, Feltz & Cova (2014) co ncluded
that even if free w ill and moral responsibility seem to be incompatible with determinism,
strong emotional responses may alter the attribution of respo nsibility. Nevertheless, belief in
free will is not rigid, but it can be weakened by exposing people to messages that question its
existence (Rigoni et.al., 2012). Vacaru & Iordanescu (2015) found that, contrary to what it
could be expected, religiosity d oes not have a major effect on belief in free will.
On the other hand, the concept free will as the freedom to c hoose is being rejected by many
scientists since they attribute our choices to other factors such as biological or social
variables, somehow associated with a lack of freedom of choice and of moral responsibility.
Some findings in the field of neuroscience promote a deterministic view of human behaviour
since each and every action is considered to be the result of an event that took place earlier in
one’s life or a result of natural laws (Feltz & Cova, 2014). Another argument brought by Feltz
and Cova (2014 ) to support the no -free-will view is that people have an unconscious need to
blame someone when a norm or a rule is broken. So somebody has to be responsible and the
concept of free will can provide satisfaction to that need.
A lack of free will is perce ived also by people suffering from chronic diseases or disorders
that make them feel like losing control such as panic disorders or epilepsy. They often find
their lack of control over their own body as a prove that free will does not exist (Ent &
Baumeist en, 2014) suggesting that the environment cannot be changed and we are helpless
when dealing with its influences. Hajicek (2009) claims that non -pathological agents also lack

Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu
Facultatea de Științe Socio -umane
Departamentul de Jurnalism, Relații Publice, Sociologie și Psihologie Specializarea PSIHOLOGIE
Coordonator:
Prof. Univ. Dr. Eugen Iordănescu
somehow free will since their choices happen often without conscious acting th rough
education or environment’s conditions.
Neurosciences su pport the idea that n ot believing in free will and antisocial behaviour
associated with it may be explained by a degradation of basic neurocognitive processes of
intentional actions, self -contr ol and perceived self -control. Moreover , it ha s been suggested
that belief that there is free will has got an adaptive role coming from a biological need of
control (Leotti, Iyengar, & Ochsner, 2010, as cited in Rigoni et.al., 2012 ). These point out
that free wi ll may not be as free as we think since it is somehow fenced by physiological
aspects.
Finally, Brooks (2008) supports the idea that human culture and our conscious rely on the
childish, naive idea that we can control our behaviour. Further, the author th inks that we are
rather self -deceiving about intentionality and control we can exercise over the environment
since the thought of free will make us fell humanly, different to other species. Brooks
concludes that we may no notice it but we are as malleable as a child and our intentions,
actions, perceptions are influenced by different factors that are not related to what we call free
will.
Based on the date gathered, I tend to think that indeed, or decision -making process may be
influenced by many other fact ors (biological, cultural, psychological, social) than just the self,
led by free will. Also, I have to point out that our needing, desires, motivations cannot always
be satisfied and one has to choose between many options by assessing which of the options is
the best for oneself, and that’s where the free will has to do its job. If it is true that
neuroscientists’ evidence provide an insight on the neurological basis of decision -making, it
does not seem to me that it denies the existence of free will but e nriches the knowledge in this
field. When it comes to Brooks’ (2008) view according to which we are “brain -machines”, we
cannot deny that the brain leads our behaviour (and our decision -making) but we cannot either
deny that our brains are so complex and s o unique that we can reduce it to fixed algorithms
that work equally for everybody.

Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu
Facultatea de Științe Socio -umane
Departamentul de Jurnalism, Relații Publice, Sociologie și Psihologie Specializarea PSIHOLOGIE
Coordonator:
Prof. Univ. Dr. Eugen Iordănescu

REFERENCES
Brooks, M. (2008). 13 things that don’t make sense . New York, U.S.: The Doubleday
Publishing Group.
Ent, M.R. & Baumeister , R.F. (2014). Embodied free will beliefs: Some effects of physical
states on metaphysical opinions. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 147 -154.
Feldman, G.; Wong, K.F.E.; Baumeister, R.F. (2016). Bad is freer than good: Positive –
negative asymmetry in a ttributions of free will. Consciousness and Cognition, 42, 26 -40.
Feltz, A.; Cova, F. (2014). Moral responsibility and free will: A meta -analysis.
Consciousness and Cognition, 30, 234 -246.
Hajicek, P. (2008). Free will as relative freedom with consci ous component. Consciousness
and Cognition, 18, 103 -109.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, U.S.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kane, R. (2009). Free will and the dialectic of selfhood: Can one make sense of a traditional
free will requiring ultimate responsibility?. Ideas y Valores, 141, 25 -43.
Protzko, J.; Ouimette, B.; & Schooler, J. (2016). Believing there is no free will corrupts
intuitive cooperation. Cognition, 151, 6 -9.
Rigoni, D.; Kühn, S.; Gaudino, G.; Sartori, G. ; & Brass, M. (2012). Reducing self -control
by weakening belief in free will. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1482 -1490
Vacaru, A.I.; & Iordanescu, E. (2015). Belief in free will in everyday life. Is there any
relationship between free will and faith?. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 187,
631-639.