What Does “Free Will” Mean?

Robert Sapolsky argues that free will requires complete independence from uncontrollable influences. We claim this criterion is overly demanding and misaligned with ordinary understandings of free will. To assess folk intuitions, we presented 197 American participants with five scenarios in which a person's behavior was shaped by uncontrollable factors. In four cases—preferences, genetic traits, brain function, and advertising—most participants judged the person to possess free will. A fifth scenario involving a compliance drug served as a control; here, most participants denied free will. These findings suggest that laypeople consider free will compatible with certain external influences. Thus, Sapolsky's conception diverges from common usage. While his strict definition may rule out free will, our results support the viability of a more moderate and widely endorsed conception. Any attempt to refute free will must first demonstrate that the definition used captures its common meaning.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Teorema
Published
2025-07-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.30827/trif.34353
Primary Topic
Free Will and Agency
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What Does “Free Will” Mean?

Alfred R. Mele, Scott Danielson, Andrew Vonasch
Teorema
Free Will and Agency
article

What Does “Free Will” Mean?

Alfred R. Mele, Scott Danielson, Andrew Vonasch
article en

Abstract

Robert Sapolsky argues that free will requires complete independence from uncontrollable influences. We claim this criterion is overly demanding and misaligned with ordinary understandings of free will. To assess folk intuitions, we presented 197 American participants with five scenarios in which a person's behavior was shaped by uncontrollable factors. In four cases—preferences, genetic traits, brain function, and advertising—most participants judged the person to possess free will. A fifth scenario involving a compliance drug served as a control; here, most participants denied free will. These findings suggest that laypeople consider free will compatible with certain external influences. Thus, Sapolsky's conception diverges from common usage. While his strict definition may rule out free will, our results support the viability of a more moderate and widely endorsed conception. Any attempt to refute free will must first demonstrate that the definition used captures its common meaning.

TeoremaVol. 44(1)
Florida State University (US), University of Canterbury (NZ), Lincoln University - Pennsylvania (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 82%
Free Will and Agency
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.