Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 16, pp 3935–3954 | Cite as

Non-psychological weakness of will: self-control, stereotypes, and consequences

  • Mathieu Doucet
  • John Turri
Article

Abstract

Prior work on weakness of will has assumed that it is a thoroughly psychological phenomenon. At least, it has assumed that ordinary attributions of weakness of will are purely psychological attributions, keyed to the violation of practical commitments by the weak-willed agent. Debate has recently focused on which sort of practical commitment, intention or normative judgment, is more central to the ordinary concept of weakness of will. We report five experiments that significantly advance our understanding of weakness of will attributions by showing that the ordinary concept of weakness of will is less thoroughly psychological than the philosophical debate has assumed. We begin by showing that a sizable minority of people attribute weakness of will even in the absence of a violated commitment (Experiment 1). We then show that weakness of will attributions are sensitive to two important non-psychological factors. First, for actions stereotypically associated with weakness of will, the absence of certain commitments often triggers weakness of will attributions (Experiments 2–4). Second, the quality of an action’s outcome affects the extent to which an agent is viewed as weak-willed: actions with bad consequences are more likely to be viewed as weak-willed (Experiment 5). Our most important finding is that the ordinary concept of weakness of will is sensitive to two non-psychological factors and is thus much broader than philosophers have thus far imagined. We conclude by suggesting a two-tier model that unites our findings with traditional philosophical theorizing about weakness of will.

Keywords

Weakness of will Akrasia Self-control Resolution Intention Commitment violation experimental philosophy Folk psychology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For helpful discussion and feedback, we thank Wesley Buckwalter, Joshua Knobe, Alfred Mele, Josh May, James Beebe, Ryan Ehrlich, Richard Forbes, Natalie Galloway, Julia Hill, Charles Millar, Jay Solanski, Ayomide Yomi-Odedeyi, Angelo Turri, Christine Tappolet, the audience at the 2014 Canadian Philosophical Association meetings at Brock University, and the anonymous referees at Synthese. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and an Early Researcher Award from the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation.

References

  1. Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (1999) T. Irwin (trans.) Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Beebe, J. (2013). Weakness of will, reasonability, and compulsion. Synthese, 190, 4077–4093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beebe, J. (Under review). The folk conception of weakness of will.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, D., & Handfield, T. (2010). Rational capacities, resolve, and weakness of will. Mind, 119, 908–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Holton, R. (1999). Intention and weakness of will. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holton, R. (2009). Willing, wanting, waiting. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kennett, J. (2014). Just say no? Addiction and the elements of self-control. In N. Levy (Ed.), Addiction and self-control: Perspectives from philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience (pp. 144–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 72. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. May, J., & Holton, R. (2012). What in the world is weakness of will? Philosophical Studies, 157, 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mele, A. (1987). Irrationality: An essay on akrasia, self-deception, and self-control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mele, A. (2010). Weakness of will and akrasia. Philosophical Studies, 150, 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mele, A. (2012). Backsliding: Understanding weakness of will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Newman, G., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2014). Value judgments and the true self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Newman, G., De Freitas, J., & Knobe, J. (in press). Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, J. T., Robinson, M. D., & Mitchell, E. B. (2004). Inferences about the authentic self: When do actions say more than mental states? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, M. (2003). Rational capacities, or: How to distinguish recklessness, weakness, and compulsion. In S. Stroud & C. Tappolet (Eds.), Weakness of will and practical irrationality (pp. 17–38). New York: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sousa, P., & Mauro, C. (2013). The evaluative nature of the folk concepts of weakness and strength of will. Philosophical Psychology. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2013.843057.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations