Psychology Research

Does one thing inevitably lead to another? New experiments show that disbelief in free will decreases helping behaviours and increases aggression. Chances are you believe in free will – I do too. To me it seems that one moment I want cereal and soon I have it. Next I want to ride my bicycle and soon I am. Later I have an itchy nose, and, in no time at all, it is scratched. But, say some scientists and philosophers, this sense of agency is an illusion: you were hungry and that’s why you ‘wanted’ cereal; you were bored and fed up of being inside so you ‘decided’ to get some exercise; and as for itchy noses, well there is a biological cause for that as well. From a determinist viewpoint each of these actions, and their causes, as well as their causes and their causes can be traced right back to my birth, then back through my parents’ lives, then right back, like clockwork, to the beginning of the universe. The strong determinist view – that we’re locked in an unchanging web of cause and effect going right back to the big bang – is repulsive to many. And quite naturally so, as free will forms the backbone of so many of society’s structures. The criminal justice system is built on the idea that people can choose whether to obey the law or not, therefore people who don’t obey should be punished. Similarly many religious and/or philosophical systems of thought have the notion of free will at their heart. Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre emphasised the connection between freedom and responsibility. He thought we must take responsibility for our choices, and that taking responsibility was at the heart of a life well lived. This debate about free will is so interesting – and knotted – that philosophers can’t keep away from it; but psychologists, on the other hand, perhaps sensing no end to the argument, can’t help their minds wandering away to more practical points. They have focused more on how beliefs in free will might affect our behaviour and whether, more generally, there might be some reason why we seem predisposed to think we have it. In new research published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Baumeister, Masicampo and DeWall (2009) theorise that a belief in free will may be partly what oils the wheels of society, what encourages us to treat each other respectfully. They explore this theory with three studies, two on helping behaviours and one on aggression. Free will and helping behaviours In the first experiment Baumeister and colleagues wanted to see how a belief in free will affected how much people were willing to help others. To manipulate their belief in free will participants read statements that either supported free will, supported determinism or had no bearing on the debate. A separate study confirmed that this really was enough to shift people’s thoughts towards determinism or towards free will. Participants then read scenarios in which helping behaviours were explored, for example by asking about giving money to a homeless person. They were asked to rate how much help they would provide to the people in these scenarios. The results showed that, as Baumeister and colleagues predicted, people whose thoughts had been pushed more towards free will were more likely to be helpful than those whose thoughts were pushed towards determinism. So it seems that people really are more helpful when they think they are free to choose as compared to when they believe their actions are pre-determined. Baumeister and colleagues argue that the belief that behaviour is pre-determined encourages people to behave automatically, and often automatic behaviour is selfish. Interestingly there was no difference seen between the free will condition and the neutral condition. What this suggests is that most people do already believe in free and don’t require extra encouragement. Of course we each differ in the amount we believe in free will and this may well affect how much help we are prepared to offer others. A second study by Baumeister and colleagues examined individual differences looking for an association between believing in free will and helping behaviours. Consistent with the previous experiment they found that people who had a ‘chronic disbelief’ in free will were less likely to be helpful to others. Free will and aggression The final experiment flipped the question around: instead of looking at prosocial behaviours they looked at antisocial behaviours. If a disbelief in free will makes people less helpful, perhaps it also makes them more likely to behave aggressively. As before participant’s thoughts were experimentally shifted towards free will or determinism and then their aggressive tendencies were measured. Instead of having people beating each other up in the lab, they chose a more indirect expression of aggression: putting spicy sauce on another person’s food. Participants were introduced to a study about food preferences which, with some complicated manoeuvring, they were encouraged to think had nothing to do with previous statements they read out about free will or determinism. Then they were told to prepare a plate of food for someone else to taste. One of the ingredients they could choose was a hot salsa sauce. The experimenters were interested in whether a belief in free will affected the amount of sauce participants put on the plate. When the participants left, the experimenters measured how much hot sauce they put on the plate. Those who had been primed to think more deterministically had spiced up the food, on average, twice as much as those who were primed to think in terms of free will. This seemed to have nothing to do with being more generous as they didn’t add more of other non-spicy foods, like cheese, to the plate. Believers in free will cheat less These experiments aren’t the first to examine how a belief in free will (or otherwise) affects our behaviour. In a recent study Vohs and Schooler (2008) also found that a belief in free will seems to have a positive effect on people’s behaviour. In that experiment (covered by Cognitive Daily ) participants whose disbelief in free will was encouraged were more likely to cheat on a test. These studies, then, point out the positive effect of free will on a variety of behaviours that most people would consider beneficial. Indeed it seems that most of us already have a firm belief in free will and so we’re already benefiting. Practically the danger is that our thoughts take a more deterministic turn and we move towards more aggression and cheating and away from helping behaviours. Compatibilism: reconciling determinism with free will This leaves us with a serious problem. If we think scientifically about the world then we have to accept that one thing really does lead to another; the reason I ‘decide’ to eat cereal is that I’m hungry, so in some sense the determinist is right. But a disbelief in free will is not only repugnant, it’s also dangerous for society. If we don’t have free will, a perverse kind of anarchism emerges, one which seems to encourage us to act any way we choose. After all if we don’t have free will then we’re not to blame for anything we do. One way some philosophers have tried to resolve this conflict is by pointing out that determinism and free will are not necessarily incompatible. Using everyday notions of free will philosophers have put forward a viewpoint that tries to integrate the two (see philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett’s book ‘ Freedom Evolves ‘ for a cognitive perspective). Classical compatiblists argue that we have free will if we have the power and ability to do things that we want to do. For example, say I want to go and buy a pint of milk for my cereal, and the shop is open, and I can get there, and I have money. For a compatibilist I have free will if I can choose to go, or, alternatively, not go. The fact that I do actually go (mainly because I’m hungry and want to eat cereal) doesn’t necessarily mean that I didn’t have the choice not to go. Compatibilists emphasise this idea that we have free will because we could have chosen to do otherwise, even if we didn’t. This idea that we ‘could have done otherwise’ is a powerful one, and one that appeals to our everyday experience. It doesn’t solve the dilemma of determinism but at least it provides a stick with which to fend it off. So when one person chooses not to help another, or chooses to behave aggressively, there must be reasons for that behaviour, many of which might appear to deny their responsibility. Ultimately, though, the proponent of free will has to argue this person could always have chosen to do otherwise. We have to cling to this belief, don’t we? [Image credit: evoo73 ]

One of my most difficult challenges as I work at home on Cognitive Daily and other projects is to keep focused on the task at hand. The internet, with its myriad distractions, is just a click away. It used to be that I could just head to a coffee shop with my laptop to get away from the internet, but now even that refuge is gone: My home internet service provider now offers free access from most coffee shops. I’ve had to discover new ways to remove myself from the distraction of the internet. I’m often surprised when the latest “convenient” device is unveiled allowing unprecedented internet access from your car, boat, or even your restroom. Do others find the internet as distracting as I do? What do you do to keep focused on the work you need to get done? Or is the internet an indispensable tool? This week’s Casual Friday study will attempt to find out: Click here to participate As usual, the study should take just a few minutes to complete. You have until Thursday, January 22 to participate. There is no limit on the number of respondents. Don’t forget to come back next week for the results! Read the comments on this post…

Take a look at this video made by fellow ScienceBlogger Dr. Isis . She’s talking with her son, a toddler who adorably mimics her as she says very complicated words such as “Adventures in Ethics and Science” and “Wackaloon” (but sadly, not “Cognitive Daily”): It’s cute, but it’s difficult to say whether Dr. Isis is really talking with her child. The difficulty babies have pronouncing words has led many parents to suspect they might be able to communicate better with their children using hand signs. Last week we talked about a study suggesting that teaching babies even a few signs like those used by the Deaf can help babies and their parents communicate. Babies can learn the signs earlier than spoken words, and these signs may represent a marked improvement in the ability of parents to communicate with their babies. This can mean that babies cry less and both parents and children get along better. But what does this communication look like in the real world, outside of a laboratory setting? Do babies stop signing as they get older? Why? One advocate of ASL (American Sign Language) suggested that the baby-signing movement might improve understanding between the Deaf and hearing communities. Does it live up to that promise? Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Last week we asked readers to tell us under what circumstances they would be likely to use a public restroom reserved for the other gender. We’ve all been in the situation where there’s a long line for one restroom and a very short or non-existent line for the other (although this tends to happen more for women’s rooms, which lack urinals). If you’re a woman, is it okay to use the men’s room? If you’re a man, is it okay to use the women’s room? Should there even be separate restrooms based on gender? We asked about the situation where there’s a short line at the other gender’s restroom and a long line at their own. Most of our readers, it turns out, would just wait it out, as this graph shows: Male or female, everyone is significantly less likely to use the opposite-gender room when it’s a multi-stall affair and the men’s room has open urinals. If it’s a single-stall restroom with a lock on the door, both males and females are more likely to use the opposite gender room compared to multi-stall restrooms. But they’re still more likely to just wait it out for their own gender restroom. Interestingly, women are significantly more likely to use the men’s room in this scenario than men are to use the women’s room — that’s the only gender-difference in our bathroom usage results. Does this reflect a general consensus of opinion on who should be allowed to use the other-gender restroom? Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

[ This entry was originally posted in April 2007 ] The Beck effect is difficult to replicate online, because it involves testing reaction times. However, I think I’ve figured out a way to approximate the effect. This movie ( Quicktime required ) will show you how it works. Just follow the directions on the opening screen: Now, which letter did you see first? Let’s make this a poll: If we manage to replicate the effect, there should be a bias in the results, which I’ll explain below so everyone has a chance to try it out before learning the “answer.” Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Last week’s Casual Fridays study was inspired by my (incorrect) observation that the latest beta version of Firefox always displays tabs. (Actually, while it defaults to that setting, it’s possible to disable it.) When I pointed this out on Twitter , the reaction was one of astonished disbelief that I might ever not want to be viewing multiple tabs. Am I the only person left who doesn’t always use tabs? And who uses the most tabs? We asked readers how many tabs they currently had open, as well as several other questions about their internet habits and opinions. As it turns out, I’m in a substantial minority: Nearly all of over 1,300 study respondents had more than one tab open when they answered the survey. Just 9.2 percent said they had one or no tabs open. But our readers don’t use tabs willy-nilly. Only 16.7 percent of respondents said they had more than 10 tabs open. Three-quarters of readers had from 2 to 10 tabs, and most of those had from 2 to 4 tabs open. We actually asked two different questions about tabs: How many do you have open now, and How many do you typically have open? The responses showed two distinct patterns: Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Quick links from the past week in mind and brain news: Bad Science unclothes the latest in the line of bogus formula-based adverts – this time for the naughtiness of Britney’s breasts. Hello Google porn surfers. Enjoy the neuroscience! Interesting memory manipulation study reported by New Scientist who include a spurious reference to the brain in the title. Cognitive Daily has a one two punch on whether seeing objects in a scene help us remember them. Hypothesis / conclusion confusion hits BBC News as a study on HSV1 virus in Alzheimer’s plaques somehow reported as cold sores ‘an Alzheimer’s risk’. Neurophilosophy has a good piece on whether the brain’s fear response is culture-specific. [A small amount of the variance in] the quality of a man’s sperm depends on [well, correlates with] how intelligent he is, reports The Economist . Neuroanthropology is one year old and celebrates with their top 10 posts. The 50 greatest movie drug trips are listed by Den of Geek , although depending on how you read Rosemary’s Baby it mightn’t be a drug trip at all. She could be becoming psychotic. Lack of sleep has genetic link with type 2 diabetes, reports Science News . Advances in the History of Psychology has an excellent piece on systematic disobedience in Milgram’s studies. Daniel Dennett and Andy Clark write in to New Scientist to react to claims of a ‘non-materialist neuroscience’. You can guess the rest. The New York Times explores our sense of touch : primal, acute and easily duped. Brain-to-computer interfaces are new portable, inexpensive, but are not ready for prime time yet, reports Scientific American . Science Daily reports on the effects of unconscious constant exposure to adverts . Some fantastic videos of developmental trajectories in cortical thickening are discussed by Developing Intelligence . Scientific American Mind Matters blog reports of the role of the serotonin transporter gene 5-HTTLPR in affecting how people are affected by trauma . Women more like to hand out phone number when most fertile , reports New Scientist . Channel N finds an interesting video on the irresitible pull of irrational behaviour.

Can you hear colors? Can you see sounds? Do words have colors or images associated with them? It may sound impossible, but there are many documented cases of people who experience all these things. We’ve discussed it before on Cognitive Daily, and even found some limited evidence of similar phenomena among the general population. Collectively, these experiences are called synesthesia. Perceptions have many modalities corresponding to different ways of experiencing the world. The most well-known modalities are the five senses, but “words” or “numbers,” or “colors” may also be considered separate modalities. So to experience synesthesia is to perceive things with multiple modalities simultaneously. The most common forms of synesthesia involve associations of words, letters, or numbers with colors. Some estimates say that as many as 1 in 200 people may have word-color synesthesia. By contrast, there have only been five documented cases in the past century of “word-gustatory synesthesia,” where hearing or seeing a word evokes an involuntary taste association. Mathew Gendel spent several months working with a woman with this type of synesthesia who goes by the initials “TD.” Since synesthesia is a completely internal process, it’s sometimes hard to believe it exists at all. It’s particularly difficult to demonstrate that it exists when only one or two people currently living experience it, so Gendel focused his efforts on determining if TD’s description of her synesthesia was real. For more common (or rather, less uncommon) forms of synesthesia, the most convincing evidence that it’s real comes from studies showing that synesthetic associations are stable. If “A” is associated with the color blue now, it will still be associated with blue six months from now. What’s more, sometimes the letter-color associations are the same for different people. With only one example to study, this type of evidence is harder to come by, but at least Gendel could test TD at different times and see if her associations were stable. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

We can quickly spot a face staring at us in a crowd. We can do this much quicker, for example, than we can determine that no one is staring at us, as this movie demonstrates. A grid of 100 pictures of Greta will be flashed for about 1/3 of a second. Can you spot the photos where she’s looking at you? You’ll see two different grids. Most people are able to detect the staring faces much faster than those looking to the side. But we can also sometimes be fooled by faces, something we discussed on one of the first-ever CogDaily posts: In this picture, the eyes for each face are exactly the same, but the face on the right appears to be staring directly at us, while the face on the left seems to be looking off to the viewer’s right. A similar effect can be achieved in reverse, keeping the head position the same while changing the eyes: Faces 1 and 2 are identical except for the eyes, and face 1 appears to be looking at us while face 2 seems to be looking away. Meanwhile, neither face 3 nor face 4, which use the same eyes as faces 1 and 2, seems to be looking at us. So when the only difference between the faces in a group is a subtle difference in eye position, will we still spot the pictures that seem to be looking at us faster? Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

(This entry was originally posted in May, 2006) We’ve discussed implicit attitudes on Cognitive Daily before , but never in the context of food. The standard implicit attitude task asks you to identify items belonging to two different categories. Consider the following lists. Use your mouse to click on items which are either pleasant or related to Genetically Modified foods (GM foods). (Clicking won’t actually do anything, it’s just a way of self-monitoring your progress) Horrible Good Transgenic Nasty Crops Wonderful dislike GE livestock Now with this next list, do the same task, only click on items which are either unpleasant or related to GM foods. Happy Bad GM plants Likeable Engineered salmon Terrible Modified tomatoes Excellent Which task was harder? I’m including a poll below the fold for you to register your results. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…