Free Will in Scientific Psychology Essay

Actions atomic number 18 muster out(p)r than early(a)s, and the difference of opinion is palpably important in terms of inner offset, native perception, and affable consequences. mental science mint study the difference among unthawr and less lighten executes without making dubious metaphysical devotements. Human exploitation sees to hold back created a relatively new, much(prenominal) complex form of transaction rule that corresponds to ordinary nonions of shift pull up stakes. It is marked by fasting and rational plectrum, both of which ar highly ad erective, especi all in ally for functioning at heart culture.The processes that create these forms of alleviate pass on whitethorn be biologically costly and beca go for atomic number 18 except used casually, so that good deal ar likely to rebriny single incompletely self-discip marchesd, virtuous, and rational. BACKGROUND What shall I do? Why did you do that? ar flock captains of their fate, o r argon they mere products of their durations and victims of circumstances? Should they be held responsible for their actions? These and similar questions pertain to the psychological problem of extra give, in roughly(prenominal) plate known as exemption of action. At the core of the question of step down pull up stakes is a make do mobile the psychological causes of action.That is, is the person an self-governing entity who genuinely chooses how to act from among multiple mathematical options? Or is the person fundamentally just unitary(a) link in a causal chain, so that the persons actions ar nevertheless the inevitable product of straight causes stemming from prior razets, and no one ever could digest acted differently than how he or she unfeignedly did? My thesis is that go off forget can be understood in terms of the different processes that control pitying action and that, indeed, these differences correspond to what laypersons generally immoral when they distinguish free from unfree action. To prove free impart in the terms of scienti?c psychology is thitherfore to invoke notions of self-regulation, control conduct processes, behavioural plasticity, and int prohibited decisionmaking. Address correspondence to Roy F. Baumeister, Department of Psychology, Florida severalise University, Tallahassee, FL 32306 e-mail baumeisterpsy. fsu. edu. The extreme positions on free pass on bewilder been staked out through centuries of philosophical debate. On the negative side, the deterministic position can be traced from Democritus through Spinoza, Comte, and Freud. It leaves no room for free human preference. Everything that happens is the needful product of prior causes.The universe resembles a giant machine, grinding on exactly as it must. There is no difference between the categories of possible and actual in this view Everything that happened was inevitable, and nothing else was ever possible. The subjective depression that w hen you make believe a plectrum you really can choose any of several options is an illusion, because forces outside your certainness are in motion to repair what you pull up stakes choose, crimson if you do not know until the last refined what that woof will be. On the other side, Jean-Paul Sartre (1943/1974) argued furoreately in promote of human independence.He contended that battalion are al ways, inevitably freecondemned to freedom, in his famous phrase. Life is a series of choice points, and at severally choice point, you could hire chosen differently than you did. (Thus, the category of the possible is farther, far to a greater extent(prenominal) vast than the category of the actual, in this view. ) When great deal say they could not help playing as they did, they are engaging in self-deceit (bad faith, in Sartres term), because they could actually lead acted otherwisecould wealthy person held their tongue, walked other step, resisted the temptation, and s o forth. Other outcomes really were possible.In between those extremes, many thinkers adopt proposed extra or partial freedom. Kant (1797/1967) proposed that mass aim a power for free action but only use it somewhat durations. For him, freedom meant acting in a morally virtuous manner sustain on enlightened argument. His argument thusly aptly sets up the emphasis on self-control and rational choice as two widely adaptive forms of free will. If free will is only occasional, whereas behavior is constantly occurring, past it is required to posit two re master(prenominal)ss for guiding behavior a nonremittal one that nearly runs the show and an occasional one that sometimes intervenes to make changes.Free will should be understood not as the churl or motor of action but alternatively as a passenger who occasionally grabs the steering wheel or nevertheless as just a navigator who says to turn left up ahead. 14 Copyright r 2008 Association for mental Science book of ac count 3Number 1 Roy F. Baumeister OBJECTIONS TO THE VERY IDEA Many psychologists disdain the subject of free will, for several reasons. First, some think that in order to be a scientist it is necessary to believe in determinism, because a scientist studies causality and cannot give up or accept exceptions.Second, and related to the ? rst, free choice (especially the full, extreme case of total freedom) cannot depend to be justifyed in scienti? c terms. Causality is how the human mind generally (and the scienti? c mind particularly) considers events, and there is no way to condone a free action causally. In other words, even if free will exists, there is no use in scientists talk of the town near it, because there would be no replicable tropes of behavior. (On this I disagree most emphaticallysee below.Third, and maybe more formidably, plenty of research has by now shown that deal are sometimes mistaken when they believe their actions to be free, so far as factors outsid e their awareness do exert a causal in? uence on them (e. g. , Bargh, 1994 Wegner, 2002 Wilson, 2002). The fact that automatic, nonconscious processes are the extend causes of action (e. g. , Libet, 1985, 1999) seems now well established and has dealt a severe soak up to some theories of conscious free will. further new theories of action contrive separated the deciding from the initiating (Gollwitzer, 1999), and free conscious choosing may have its main role in the deciding (deliberative) stage. To illustrate, free will would have more to do with deciding (now) to walk to the store when the rain stops (later) than with tell each footstep during the actual trip. Modern research methods and technology have emphasized slicing behavior into milliseconds, but these advances may paradoxically arrest the important role of conscious choice, which is mainly seen at the macro direct (Donald, 2002).Meanwhile, there are several objections to the determinists too. To require scientists to believe in determinism seems unwarranted. by and by all, the deterministic hypothesisthat every event is fully and inevitably caused by prior events and nothing else than what happened was ever possibleis itself unproven and even unprovable, so it requires a big leap of faith. Determinism is also inappropriate to everyday devour (in which people do make choices, and they believe subjectively that more than one outcome is possible).Moreover, to say that scienti?c information and especially psychological data point to determinism is itself sevedepose overstated. Most psychological experiments demonstrate probabilistic rather than deterministic causation A given cause changes the odds of a particular response but almost never operates with the complete inevitability that deterministic causality would entail. These objections do not disprove determinism, but they sure raise questions. It seems unreasonable to require that every scientist must believe something that is unproven, u nproveable, contrary to daily experience, and incongruent with our data.A further objection to determinism is the observation that freedom and choice are woven deeply into the fabric of human dealings and activities. If freedom and choice are completely illusionsif the outcome of every choice was inevitable all a vastwhy must people agonise so over decisions? Why do they argue and strive so often for the right to decide (that is, for power and liberty)? Why has so oftentimes political, economic, and complaisant struggle been aimed at increasing freedom if freedom is just an illusion?The presence versus absence of choice, control, autonomy, and freedom has been shown to be a signi? set up causal factor in many aspects of human life, including dissonance and dead body (Linder, Cooper, & Jones, 1967), reactance (Brehm, 1966), stress and coping (Glass, Singer, & Friedman, 1969), and motivated exercise (Ryan & Deci, 2000).Moreover, with few circumscribed exceptions, people almost everlastingly prefer freedom and are better forward with itand seemingly not just because the lack of freedom prevents them from securing tangible rewards. It is not as if people would be ? ne with slavery or prison house if only the regimen were better.Countless people have risked and sacri?ced their lives in ? ghting to reach and defend freedom, and it is very dif? cult to ? nd historical instances of uprisings or wars based on a demand for less freedom. Laypersons may not understand the concept of free will in the same way as philosophers and scientists, but they use freedom to denote some psychological phenomena that are powerful and important. PSYCHOLOGYS TASK In my opinion, it would be a mistake for psychologists to argue some whether free will exists and to debate the abstract details. Philosophers and others have already spent centuries re?ning the concepts through such argument, and tell their hammer would not be a good use of time and effort. In comparison with phil osophers, psychologists are amateurs at conceptual re? nement and debate but are specialists at conducting experimental tests of causal hypotheses.Our expertise is thus not well suited for ascertaining the existence or nonexistence of free will, which is probably impossible to prove. Researchers such as Wegner (2002) and Bargh and Morsella (2008, this issue) may show that people are sometimes unaware of the causes of particular behaviors, but such ?ndings are incapable of establishing that all behaviors are the result of ? rm causal processes of which people are unaware.Conversely, it seems equally impossible to prove that a given person could have acted differently than he or she did under exactly the same circumstances. Psychologys contribution lies elsewhere. Psychologists should focus on what we do best accumulate evidence about measurable variance in behaviors and inner processes and identifying alineable patterns in them.With free will, it seems most productive for psycholo gists to start with the well-documented observation that some acts are freer than others. As already noted, dissonance, reactance, coping with stress, and other behaviors have been shown in the laboratory to depend on variations in freedom and choice. and so, it is only necessary to assume that there are genuine phenomena behind those subjective and physical object Volume 3Number 1 15 Free go remote in Scienti? c Psychology differences in freedom.In a nutshell, we should explain what happens differently between free and unfree actions. Thus, the optimal agenda for psychology would be to ? nd out what people mean when they use concepts of freedom, choice, and indebtedness in their daily lives and so to illuminate the inner processes that produce those phenomena. WHAT MAKES exertion FREE? A starting point for psychology is to identify what aspects of an action make people regard it as free versus unfree. To be sure, some factors can contribute to a mistaken sense of freedom in ones own action.Wegner (2002) showed that when the thought of an event immediately precedes its actual occurrence, people believe they have caused it, even if in reality they have not. For example, when participants who were moving a pointer around a computer prove along with someone else (akin to having four hands on the pointer on a Ouija board) heard the name of some image mentioned and past the cursor stopped there 2 s later, they believed that they had intentionally caused the cursor to stop, even though the stopping was actually programmed by the apparatus (Wegner & Wheatley, 1999). There are several ways to interpret these ? ndings.One is to suggest that all conscious will and volition are illusions From the observation that people are sometimes mistaken about conscious will, one could extrapolate that they are always mistaken. Another is to suggest that people do not have a direct, introspective way of knowing when they initiate action, and so they rely on salient cues to give them the feel and subjective impression of having acted or chosen, and this system of cues can be fooled. Shifts in the loving distribution of causality and path are important to people, and these correspond to social phenomena that people have encountered for millennia.Power, for example, confers on one person the right to make decisions that may affect others (e. g. , Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), and the long history of power struggles can be viewed as being about who gets to choose. Studies by Brehm (1966) and his colleagues have also shown that people are very bare-assed to having their freedom of choice restricted by others. When an option is taken away from them, they respond by desiring that option more, by essay actively to confirm that freedom and take that option, and even by aggressing against whomever restricted their freedom.Such patterns seem hard to reconcile with the view that all free will and choice (in every sense) are illusions Why would peop le care so much about something that is entirely inconsequential? Another approach to understanding what people mean by free will is to have participants rate how free a stimulus persons actions are. Stillman, Sparks, Baumeister, and Tice (2006) had participants rate scenarios that varied systematically along several dimensions.Participants rated peoples actions as freest when their choices were made afterward conscious deliberation, when their actions went against external pressure rather than going along with it, and when people acted against their shortterm self-interest. Thus conscious, rational choice and selfcontrol seem to be integral split of what people perceive as free.When people wrote autobiographical accounts of their own acts that matte up free or unfree, pursuing semipermanent personal goals was central to the tone of voice of freedom. The difference suggests that people see free will in others as recyclable for restraining their socially un worthy impulses, but in themselves they see free will in the sustained pursuit of (enlightened) self-interest.As Dennett (1984, 2003) has argued, free will is hardly worth having unless it helps you get something you want. THE EVOLUTION OF FREEDOM Several upstart authors have argued that human freedom of action is a product of evolutionary processes (e. g. , Dennett, 2003). I proposed that the de? ning thrust of human psychological evolution was selection in favor of cultural capability (Baumeister, 2005). That process susceptibility well have included a new, different way of controlling behavior, whose purpose was change the beast to function in a complex, information-based society.The hallmarks of this new form of behavioral control include personal responsibility, conscious deliberation, invoking abstract rules and principles to guide actions, self-governing initiative, and a capacity to resist urges that have earlier evolutionary grow but that may be incompatible with civilized life (e. g. , have any nourishment you ? nd when hungry, including what is on the plates of other restaurant patrons). Whether this pattern will satisfy the various theological and philosophical de? nitions of free will is hard to say, but it could well correspond to what ordinary people mean when they speak of free action.The previous section noted that free will has to be useful for bene? ting the person. Evolution has favored tools with psychological processes insofar as those processes help them pursue their goals. A more sizable animal, for example, may be better able to ? nd food and reproduce than a less intelligent one. In human cultural life, however, there is sometimes a tradeoff between short-term and long-term goals, and much of the achievement of the human species is based on our ability to sacri? ce short-term goals for the long-term ones, as in delay of grati? cation (Mischel & Ayduk, 2004).For example, taking someone elses food may bring short-term bene? ts, but if it leads th e other group members to cast away or expel the person, it could be self-defeating in the long run. Hence free will may be most useful in fostering the pursuit of enlightened self-interest. Were evolution working instead to enable the human animal to pursue what it wants right now to maximum effect, it might have promoted physical strength, speed, and ferocity rather than mindpower and social skills. But to succeed and live harmoniously in a cultural group, the animal is best served by being able to inhibit its impulses and desires.Perhaps ironically, free will is necessary to enable people to follow rules. 16 Volume 3Number 1 Roy F. Baumeister Let me focus brie? y on two of the most important phenomena that are associated with the concept of free will self-control and rational intelligent choice. The cultural-animal argument has the following assumptions. First, self-control and wise to(p) choice are much more highly developed in humans than in other animals and thus are among the most distinctively human traits. Second, these traits are highly conducive for living in a cultural society.Third, these traits are probably interrelated in the sense of communion some inner processes and mechanisms, which suggests that one evolved ? rst and the other piggy-backed on the ? rst ones system. My speculative evolutionary scenario is that self-control evolved ? rst, because it is useful already in merely social (as opposed to cultural) groups. For example, it would be natural for hungry animals to eat food that they see and want, but in many social groups the alpha anthropoid would beat up any other who tries to take his food or usurp his other prerogatives.Therefore, in order to live in social groups, animals must develop the capacity to restrain their impulses and bring their behavior into line with externally imposed constraints. Moving from social to cultural groups substantially increases the magnificence of following rules, including moral principles, laws, commands, religious prescriptions, norms, and customs. Rational intelligent choice, then, evolved later than selfcontrol and was even more distinctively associated with culture.Culture is based on information, and the whopping hail of information in a culture creates great opportunities for reasoning powers to carriage through it and draw action-relevant conclusions. Human decision making is far more complex and varied than that in other species. As Searle (2001) pointed out, rationality is widely regarded as a central human trait, but not all have noticed that rationality entails at least some modified concept of free willat least to the extent that one can alter ones behavior on the base of that reasoning.Put another way, self-control gives the capacity to alter your behavior to conform to the groups rules, and rationality enables you to work out your own rules and then behave accordingly. This line of thought ? ts the view of free will as a sometime thing. People are incompl etely rational and self-controlled. They have the capacity for acting for acting rationally and exerting self-control, but they only use it sometimes. This suggests the capacity is limited. WHY FREE WILL IS LIMITED Our research on ego depletion provides one way to understand why free will is at best an occasional phenomenon.In testing several competing theories about self-regulation, we consistently lay down that people performed relatively poorly at almost any self-control assign if they had recently performed a different self-control task (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998 Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). The implication is that some resource is used up by the ? rst act of self-control, leaving less available for the second.Choice may also deplete the same resource. Vohs et al.(2006) found that making a series of choices led to poorer self-control on accompanying, unrelated tasks, as compared with just thinking about items or answering questions about them without maki ng choices among them. The fact that effortful choice uses the same resource as self-control links the two main forms of free will and supports the idea that they share a common rudimentary mechanism. Thus, the traditional concept of willpower does appear to be a useful metaphor, insofar as both self-control and rational choice rely on some kind of power.To move beyond metaphor, Gailliot et al.(2007) began studying blood-glucose kinetics. Glucose is a chemical in the bloodstream that is the fuel for brain (and other) activities. Although all brain processes use glucose, some use much more than others, and self-control is a likely candidate to be one of these more expensive processes. Gailliot et al. (2007) found that acts of self-control caused reductions in the levels of glucose in the bloodstream, and that low levels of blood glucose after initial acts of self-control were strongly correlated with poor self-control on subsequent tasks.Moreover, experimental administrations of gl ucose counteracted some of the ego-depletion effects. That is, drinking a glass of lemonade with sugar enabled people to perform well at self-control even if they had recently bypast through a depleting exercise of self-control. Lemonade made with a sugar supervene upon (thus not furnishing glucose) had no effect. These ? ndings suggest that human evolution developed a second, new, and expensive way of controlling action. It involved using relatively large quantities of the bodys caloric efficacy to fuel complex psychological processes.If the cultural-animal argument is correct, then these processes should have improved biological success by enabling people to behave in more advantageous ways. spacious evidence con? rms that this second executive mode of action control has adaptive bene? ts and that when its resources are depleted or inadequate, behavior is less successful. Nondepleted persons top ego-depleted ones at making effective and unbiased decisions (Amir, Dhar, Pochept saya, & Baumeister, 2007), at logical reasoning and intelligent thought (Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003), and at active coping with unexpected setbacks (Vohs & Baumeister, 2006). fasting has multiple bene? ts, and people who are high on the trait end up more successful in work and school, are more popular and better liked, have healthier and more stable relationships, commit fewer crimes, and have less psychopathology (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005 Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990 Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988 Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). And as for following rules generally, there is some cross-cultural evidence that countries with higher rule of law describe signi? cantly higher subjective well-being (Veenhoven, 2004). Volume 3Number 1 17 Free Will in Scienti?c Psychology accept IN FREEDOM This brief article has argued that psychologys task is to ? nd out what people perceive as free will and what genuine psychological phenomena underlie those perceptions. Such investigati ons will not establish whether free will exists according to some philosophical or theological de? nitions, and it remains possible that many laypersons spirits about free will are partly or wholly mistaken. If free will is entirely an illusion, however, then it becomes especially perplexing that people devote so much time and effort to sustaining those illusions.Belief in free will is highly relevant to many social, legal, and moral judgments. For example, if all actions are fully caused and therefore inevitable, why does the legal system spend so much time trying to establish whether a perpetrator was acting freely? Heat of passion crimes are just as fully caused as any other crimes, in that view, so it makes little sense for judges to award hoy sentences. Yet they do. One possible explanation for the widespread social tactual sensation in free will is that it helps produce socially desirable and harmonious actions.To return to the cultural-animal framework, I am assuming that people evolved so as to be able to live and work in culture (Baumeister, 2005). Anything that makes people better able to do that, including improvements in cooperation and prosocial actions or reductions in antisocial actions, would therefore be bene? cial. To speculate, cultures that believed in free will might have outreproduced and supplanted cultures that did not. Belief in free will does support socially desirable actions, according to Vohs and Schooler (2008).They found that participants who had been induced to disbelieve in free will were subsequently more likely than a control group to tricker on a test. Further studies by Baumeister, Masicampo, and DeWall (2006) using the VohsSchooler methods found that bring forth participants to disbelieve in free will made them more scrappy and less helpful toward others. If we combine the cheating, aggression, and helping ? ndings, it seems reasonable to suggest that belief in free will is conducive to better, more harmonious socia l behavior.CONCLUSION A scienti?c approach to free will should perhaps start with the view that freedom of action evolved as a new, more sophisticated form of controlling behavior. Its two components, self-control and rational intelligent choice, conferred important advantages by enabling the human animal to function within a cultural society. Recent evidence about ego depletion and glucose dynamics suggests that this new, freer form of action control is biologically expensive, which may help explain why free will is only used occasionally. Nonetheless, even its occasional use may contribute greatly to increasing the ?Exibility and adaptive multifariousness of human behavior. AcknowledgmentsWork on this article was facilitated by a subsidisation from the Templeton Foundation, and it builds on research supported by Grant MH57039 from the National take of Mental Health. REFERENCES Amir, O. , Dhar, R. , Pocheptsaya, A. , & Baumeister, R. F. (2007).The fatigued decision maker egotis m depletion changes decision process and outcome. Manuscript submitted for publication. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity Awareness, ef? ciency, intention, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer younger , & T. K.Srull (Eds. ), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed. , pp. 140). Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum. Bargh, J. A. , & Morsella, E. (2008). The primacy of the unconscious. Perspectives on mental Science, 3, 7379. Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal Human nature, meaning, and social life. newborn York Oxford University Press. Baumeister, R. F. , Bratslavsky, E. , Muraven, M. , & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion Is the active self a limited resource? ledger of character and companionable Psychology, 74, 12521265. Baumeister, R. F. , Masicampo, E. J. , & DeWall, C. N. (2006). Prosocial bene?ts of feeling free Inducing disbelief in free will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness. Manuscript submitted for publication. Brehm, J. (1966). A theor y of psychological reactance. New York Academic Press. Dennett, D. C. (1984). Elbow room The varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge, MA MIT Press. Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom evolves. New York Viking/Penguin. Donald, M. (2002). A mind so rare The evolution of human consciousness. New York Norton. Duckworth, A. L. , & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents.Psychological Science, 16, 939944. Gailliot, M. T. , Baumeister, R. F. , DeWall, C. N. , Maner, J. K. , Plant, E. A. , Tice, D. M. , et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of reputation and loving Psychology, 92, 325336. Glass, D. C. , Singer, J. E. , & Friedman, L. N. (1969). Psychic cost of adaptation to an environmental stressor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 200210. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999).Implementation intentions Strong effects of simple plans. America n Psychologist, 54, 493503. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA Stanford University Press. The distinction between free choice and unfree action has enormous and widespread signi? cance individually, socially, historically, and politically.That distinction also seems so thoroughly woven into the fabric of human social life that it seems wild-eyed to try to imagine a society that had abandoned the concept so as to operate beyond freedom and dignity, in Skinners (1971) titular phrase. Psychology can explore and elucidate that difference between free and unfree action without having to resolve metaphysical questions.Conscious, controlled, and self-regulating processes seem likely to be important aspects of what people understand as free will. 18 Volume 3Number 1 Roy F. Baumeister Kant, I. (1967). Kritik der praktischen Vernunft Critique of practical reason. Hamburg, Germany Felix Meiner Verlag. (Original work published 1797) Keltner, D. , Gruenfeld, D. H. , & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265284. Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 8, 529566. Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will?Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 4757. Linder, D. E. , Cooper, J. , & Jones, E. E. (1967). Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 245254. Mischel, W. , & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system The dynamics of delay of grati? cation. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds. ), Handbook of self-regulation Research, theory, and applications (pp. 99129). New York Guilford. Mischel, W. , Shoda, Y. , & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of grati? cation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687696. Muraven, M. R. , & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247259. Ryan, R. M. , & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 6878. Sartre, J. -P. (1974). macrocosm and nothingness. Secaucus, NJ Citadel. (Original work published 1943) Schmeichel, B. J. , Vohs, K. D. , & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego depletion use of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 3346. Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA MIT Press. Skinner, B. F. (1971). beyond freedom and dignity. New York Knopf. Stillman, T. D. , Sparks, E. , Baumeister, R. F. , & Tice, D. M. (2006). What makes freedom? Situational factors that in? uence ratings of free will. Manuscript in preparation. Tangney, J. P. , Baumeister, R. F. , & Boone, A. L. (2004). High selfcontrol predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271322.Veenhoven, R. (2004). dry land database of happiness Continuous register of scienti? c research on subjective appreciation of life. Retrieved September 26, 2004, from http//www. eur. nl/fsw/research/happiness Vohs, K. D. , & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Does depletion promote passivity? Self-regulatory resources and active coping. Manuscript in preparation. Vohs, K. D. , Baumeister, R. F. , Nelson, N. M. , Rawn, C. D. , Twenge, J. M. , Schmeichel, B. J. , & Tice, D. M. (2006). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control A limited resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative.Manuscript submitted for publication. Vohs, K. D. , & Schooler, J. W. (2008). The value of believe in free will Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating. Psychological Science, 19, 4954. Weg ner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA MIT Press. Wegner, D. M. , & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54, 480491. Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press. Volume 3Number 1 19.