The behaviorist approach proposes that all behavior is learned and can be explained solely in terms of external (environmental) factors. This is environmental determinism. Skinner (1971) argued forcefully that freedom is an illusion, maintained only because people are unaware of the environmental causes of behavior (Wikipedia:online). Causes are clear when there is a direct threat of punishment or possibility of reward e.g. not committing a crime through fear of imprisonment. In some cases where the environmental causes are not so apparent it may seem that we are acting freely, but behavior is still determined by things that have been rewarded in the past, e.g. learnt and conditioned behavior. Humans are seen as ‘blank slates’ when they come into the world and being totally determined by their experiences. Bandura suggested ‘reciprocal determinism’, a position where the environment influences the individual who on the other hand influences the environment.
Radical behaviorists argue that all behavior could be predicted if we knew ‘enough about people’s histories of reinforcement’ ( Fancher, 1996 :Baker, M 2003 Introd Psych:Themes & Persp: Page 101). It is clear that Skinner believes free will is an illusion conflict with the need to attribute people with free will as if they were responsible for their behavior. Skinner (1971) acknowledged that freedom and dignity are ‘’ essential to practices in which a person is held responsible for his conduct and given credit for his achievements’ (Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp: 4th ed). According to Garrett (1996) ‘ If we’re rational thinking creatures, capable of assessing ethical rules and personalities, and evaluating the goodness of our lives, then we have all the freedom needed to reasonably prefer democratic to non democratic forms of government’ Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp: 4th ed).
Another consequence of Skinners rejection of the notion of ‘autonomous man ‘is what Ringen a theorist called ‘ behaviour therapist dilemma’. Ringen (1996) claims that there is a deep tension between two features of modern clinical psychology. Skinner (1971) argues that scientific considerations support radical behaviourism as a suitable development of behaviour therapy. However significant ethical and legal constraint on such practice requires informed consent and obliges the therapists to acknowledge the autonomy of those who come to them for help (Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp: 4th ed).
A. Gross (1990) a theorist states that intuition suggests people have the ability to choose their own courses of action and determine their behaviour, which implies they have ‘free will’. The positivistic nature of scientific psychology implies that behaviour is determined by external or internal events or stimuli, and people are passive responders of this ( Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp 4th ed). Taylor’s (1963) theory suggests determinism is ‘’the affect that some cause or causes, or that everything is not only detriment but casually determined’’. It’s only humans who can agree and disagree to make decisions; this can only be done by using their minds (mental processes). This implies free will is linked with having a mind but this not necessarily since it is possible that decisions etc are themselves determined although they appear freely chosen (Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp: 4th ed).
Humanistic psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow believe in free will, they argued that people have choice in their behavior, and they denied that people’s behavior is at the mercy of outside forces alone. Roger’s client-centered therapy is based on the assumption that the client has free will to change if he or she chooses to do so. The therapist is called a ‘facilitator’ because his role is to make it easier for the client to exercise free will in such a way as to ‘maximize rewarding ness’ of the client’s life. Humanistic psychologists argue that regarding human behavior as being determined by external forces is ‘de-humanizing’ and incorrect (Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp 4th ed).
Rogers was the most influential Humanistic phenomenological psychologist, his work stressed the process of ‘self-actualisation’ and the necessity of adopting the other persons perspective to understand their self-concept. Rogers experience as a therapist encouraged his client centered theory and convinced him that real change does occur in therapy. Therapy and life are about free human beings struggling to become free, this is according to their different perceptions and life situations. How we react to our experience is something we ourselves choose and decide (Morea 1990 : Wikipedia online ). Rogers however is still aware that in reality evil does exist, ‘’ in my experience, every person has the capacity for evil behaviour. I, and others, have had murderous and cruel impulses…feeling of anger and rage, desires to impose our wills on others … Whether I will translate these impulses into behaviour depends on two elements: social conditioning and voluntary choice’’ (Rogers, 1982, cited in Thorne, 1992: Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp 4th Ed). It is evident from this quotation that Rogers makes a clear distinction between ‘human nature’ and ‘behaviour’. Although his earlier writings suggest human beings are complex and not free, and determinism is the foundation of present day science, his recent work proposes a version of ‘soft determinism’. Rogers meant that at the same time we choose our behaviour it is also being determined by all the relevant conditions that exist. He suggests the fully functioning person is aware of all that is occurring inside, and has an accurate grasp of existing external factors. This individual is free but will take a certain course of action in the prescience of all available stimuli. There are certain behaviours that are most productive from both subjective and objective viewpoints, therefore there is no contradiction between free will and determinism: they coincide (Nye, 2000: Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp: 4th ed).
Science is based on the assumption that one thing causes another, and can be used to predict behaviour and manipulate it, but free will denies such relationships (Letts:A2 Psych 2001 ). Those believing in free will have to confront two major problems. First, it is hard to provide a precise account of what is meant by free will. Determinism is based on the assumption that all behavior has one or more causes, and it could be argued that free will implies that behavior is random and has no cause. However, very few people would want to argue for such an extreme position. Anyone whose behavior seems to be random would probably be classified as mentally ill or very stupid. If free will does not imply that behavior has no cause, then we need to know how free will plays a part in causing behaviour. Second, most sciences are based on the assumptions of determinism. It is possible that determinism applies to the natural world but does not apply to humans. If that is the case, then there are great implications for psychology that have hardly been addressed yet (Gross 2001: Psych Themes & Persp 4th ed).
It can be concluded that the issue of determinism is scientific, where as free will is philosophical rather than scientific, as suggested by the efforts of various theorists it is impossible to design an experiment to decide whether or not free will influences human behaviour to validate such a suggestion. As W. James states ‘’ the fact is that the question of free will is insoluble on strictly psychological grounds’’. He suggests that we can never know whether an individual ‘s behaviour in a certain situation could have been different if he or she had ‘willed’ it. Although those who believe in determinism or free will often seem to have radically different views, there is more common ground between them than is realized. It evident that most psychologists regardless of their opinions of free will and determinism accept that heredity, past experience, and the present environment all influence our behaviour. Although some of these factors such as the environment are external to the individual, others are internal. Most of these internal factors (such as character or personality) are the results of causal sequences stretching back into the past. The dispute then narrows to the issue of whether a solitary internal factor ( free will or self) is somehow immune from the influence of the past. This suggests that there is no real incompatibility between determinism and free will, determinists research suggested that in principle it is possible to show that an individual’s actions are caused by a sequence of physical activities in the brains. If free will (e.g. conscious thinking and decision making) forms part of that sequence, it is possible to believe in free will and human responsibility at the same time as holding to a deterministic position. This would not be the case if free will is ``regarded as an intruder forcing its way into the sequence of physical activities in the `brain, but there are no good grounds for adopting this position. Therefore the controversy between free will and determinism may be viewed as artificial and of little concern to psychologists.
It is clear that free will and determinism have been discussed from both a humanistic and behaviouristic view, and both approaches posed a significant amount of theoretical research to support their suggestions. However if further theries from different perspectives were included then free will and determinism could be discussed more throroughly with all research included from e.g. sociobiology, biological, social learning, psychoanalytical and cognitive theories.