With the start of the New Year millions have resolved
to lie less, cheat less, put the holiday hangovers behind
them, or otherwise better their lives. Some will moderate
their bad habits; others may make significant changes
and become shining examples of integrity. But most of
those well-intended New Years resolutions are destined
to fail. In an age where cheating scandals plague elite
universities and major corporations are brought down by
unethical actions, the debate about the origins and nature
of our decisions play into a larger debate about genetic
determinism and free will.
It is well established that changing peoples sense
of responsibility can change their behavior. But what
would happen if people came to believe that their behavior
was the inevitable product of a causal chain beyond their
control -- a predetermined fate beyond the reach of free
will?
Surprisingly, the link between fatalistic beliefs and
unethical behavior has never been examined scientifically
-- until now. In two recent experiments, psychologists
Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan
Schooler of the University of British Columbia decided
to explore this knotty philosophical issue in the lab,
and they figured out an innovative way to do it.
Vohs and Schooler set out to see if otherwise honest
people would cheat and lie if their beliefs in free will
were manipulated.
The psychologists gave college students a mathematics
exam. The math problems appeared on a computer screen,
and the subjects were told that a computer glitch would
cause the answers to appear on the screen as well. To
prevent the answers from showing up, the students had
to hit the space bar as soon as the problems appeared.
In fact, the scientists were observing to see if the
participants surreptitiously used the answers instead
of solving the problems honestly on their own. Prior to
the math test, Vohs and Schooler used a well-established
method to prime the subjects' beliefs regarding free will:
some of the students were taught that science disproves
the notion of free will and that the illusion of free
will was a mere artifact of the brain's biochemistry whereas
others got no such indoctrination.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org
The results were clear: those with weaker convictions
about their power to control their own destiny were more
apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to
those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives
were left untouched.
Vohs and Schooler then went a step further to see if
they could get people to cheat with unmistakable intention
and effort. In a second study, the experimenters set up
a different deception: they had the subjects take a very
difficult cognitive test. Then, the subjects solved a
series of problems without supervision and scored themselves.
They also "rewarded" themselves $1 for each
correct answer; in order to collect, they had to walk
across the room and help themselves to money in a manila
envelope.
The psychologists had previously primed the participants
to have their beliefs in free will bolstered or reduced
by having them read statements supporting a deterministic
stance of human behavior. And the results were just as
robust. As reported in the January issue of Psychological
Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological
Science, this study shows that those with a stronger belief
in their own free will were less apt to steal money than
were those with a weakened belief.
Although the results of this study point to a significant
value in believing that free will exists, it clearly raises
some significant societal questions about personal beliefs
and personal behavior.