Vohs and Schooler

Question 1

Vohs and Schooler

Answer 1

1. 2008
2. Vohs and Schooler
3. The value of Believing in Free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating

Question 2

Background to Vohs and Schooler study

Answer 2

1. Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler (2008) looked at moral behaviour
2. Some people believe that behaviour is controlled by genetic make-up or brain structure or environmental influences. They feel we are not free to choose our own actions
3. If people feel they do not choose what they do, they don’t feel responsibility for their actions, encouraging a lack of morality
4. Determinism is the idea that all behaviour is ‘determined’ or caused by forces such as genes or environment
5. Free will is the idea that despite these influences, people can make choices
6. Vohs and Schooler suggest that taking away someone’s feeling of being in control and increasing their belief that behaviour is determines, and so reducing their responsibility, is likely to lead to less moral behaviour

Question 3

Aims of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 3

1. to see if encouraging a belief in determinism would encourage cheating
2. Vohs and Schooler wanted to see if someone in control of their actions, but believing all behaviour is determined, would use that control to be less moral rather than having ‘normal’ self control and behaving morally.

Question 4

Procedure of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 4

1. 13 females and 17 male university students took part
2. Tested individually after being randomly allocated to either the experimental or the control group
3. The experimental group read about Francis Crick’s article that we have no free will and what we do comes from the way our brain works
4. The control group read about consciousness but not about the issue of free will
5. All participants were then put in a position that would allow them to cheat by using a computer program to give answers to maths problems they were supposed to be solving themselves
6. A measure of the participants’ beliefs about free will and determinism was recorded before and after the study
7. they did this by completing a questionnaire : Free Will and Determinism Scale (FWD)

Question 5

Independent variable of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 5

which passage was read

Question 6

Dependent variable of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 6

1. whether they cheated or not
2. to measure it, the number of space bar presses on a computer
3. a space bar press avoided the answer being revealed, so avoiding cheating

Question 7

Results of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 7

1. Participants who read Crick’s ‘anti free-will’ passage showed lower belief in free will than those in the control condition
2. This showed that Crick’s passage led some participants to believe more strongly in determinism
3. Participants showed more cheating if they read the anti free-will passage than if they did not

Question 8

Analysis of the results of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 8

1. Space bar presses for each participant was recorded. However presses showed a lack of cheating and Vohs and Schooler wanted their results to show cheating
2. They therefore subtracted the number of space bar presses for each person from 20 to give them a ‘cheating score’
3. The cheating score measured how many times they had not pressed the space bar, so had seen the answer and cheated

Question 9

relationship between free will and determinism score and cheating behaviour

Answer 9

1. There was more cheating the less someone believed in free will
2. This was a negative correlation: the higher the cheating score, the lower the free will and determinism score
3. The result of the negative correlation was a high negative correlation

Question 10

Conclusion of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 10

1. When determinism is put forwards as a view and free-will beliefs are challenged, behaviour becomes less moral (measured in cheating)
2. It was found that weakening someone’s belief in free will leads to a higher likelihood of cheating
3. It was also found that people’s belief in free will is easily challenged

Question 11

Evidence for Vohs and Schooler

Answer 11

1. The results of Vohs and Schooler were compatible with those of Fred Schab (1991), who found that self-reports of cheating have increased over time
2. 24% of students in 1969 said they used a cheat-sheet and 68% said this in 1989
3. Schab also found that more people said they felt that control over their actions came from external factors, which supports the idea that cheating is linked to deterministic beliefs

Question 12

Strengths of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 12

1. It was ethical because in the ‘cheating’ condition, the results could be shredded in order to protect anonymity. When the participants were identifiable, their results were removed
2. There was a debrief which complies with ethical principles
3. It has a practical application - suggesting that behaviour comes from both genes and the environment. The findings suggest that believing we have free will can lead us to behave morally, even if from a scientific point of view our behaviour is all determined. This has an implication for society

Question 13

Weaknesses of Vohs and Schooler

Answer 13

1. When the experiment was first carried out, it was thought that not pressing the space bar meant not cheating, but it could have simply meant just doing nothing - problem with measuring cheating (a second experiment was done to address this weakness)
2. It was done in an artificial environment (both the setting and task being completed) so it lacks validity
3. It was measuring moral behaviour which was mildly unethical. It is possible that pushing someone into believing they do not have free will would not affect real immoral behaviour