Connecticut College Psychology Journal 2020

STIGMA ASSOCIATION 101

Labaš, S. D. (2016). Alcohol use: Social aspect, gender differences and stigmatization.
Alcoholism and Psychiatry Research, Journal on Psychiatric Research and Addictions,
52(1), 51-64. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2016-34414-
004&site=ehost-live

Luoma, J. B., Twohig, M. P., Waltz, T., Hayes, S. C., Roget, N., Padilla, M., et al. (2007).
An investigation of stigma in individuals receiving treatment for substance abuse
doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.09.008

Mackert, M., Mabry, A., Hubbard, K., Grahovac, I., & Steiker, L. H. (2014). Perceptions of
substance abuse on college campuses: Proximity to the problem, stigma, and health
promotion. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 14(3), 273-285.
doi:10.1080/1533256X.2014.936247

Mayo Clinic Staff. (2017, March 08). Caffeine: How much is too much? Retrieved from
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-
depth/caffeine/art-20045678

Merianos, A. L., King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A., & Hardee, A. M. (2016). The effect of
alcohol abuse and dependence and school experiences on depression: A national study
of adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 25(6), 584-590.
doi:10.1080/1067828X.2016.1153556

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2018, August). Alcohol Facts and
Statistics.www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-
statistics.

STIGMA ASSOCIATION 102

Ogawa, N., & Ueki, H. (2007). Clinical importance of caffeine dependence and abuse.
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 61(3), 263-268. doi:10.1111/j.1440-
1819.2007.01652.x

Palamar, J. J., Kiang, M. V., & Halkitis, P. N. (2011). Stigma of Drug Users Scale.
PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/Full; Full text; 999915117pass:[_]full_001.pdf

Room, R. (2005). Stigma, social inequality and alcohol and drug use. Drug and Alcohol
Review, 24(2), 143-155. doi:10.1080/09595230500102434

Smith, L. R., Earnshaw, V. A., Copenhaver, M. M., & Cunningham, C. O. (2016).
Substance Use Stigma Mechanisms Scale. PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/Full; Full text;
999951132pass:[_]full_001.pdf

Walker, L. R., Abraham, A. A., & Tercyak, K. P. (2010). Adolescent caffeine use, ADHD,
and cigarette smoking. Children's Health Care, 39(1), 73-90.
doi:10.1080/02739610903455186

Running head: PEER WELLBEING COACHING 103

Is a Peer Wellbeing Coaching Program Beneficial?
Madison Smith

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 104

Is a Peer Wellbeing Coaching Program Beneficial?
The goal of the peer wellbeing coaching program is to guide students by developing a
growth-promoting relationship between a student and coach by enabling self-growth and goal
setting. The student is the expert of their own life, therefore, peer wellbeing coaches aid in
guidance of students’ self- discovery by, “connecting the dots between who they are and who
they want to be, and in taking the incremental behavioral steps that will enable them to succeed
in their desired changes, leading to a higher level of health and well- being” (Moore et. al., 2014,
p. 2). Peer wellbeing coaches approach their work by helping the student consider all aspects of
wellbeing-body, mind, and spirit.
By forming growth- promoting relationships with students, peer wellbeing coaches elicit
self-motivational guidance for students to build confidence, “Coaches first look to collaborate
and partner rather than showing up as experts who primarily analyze problems, give advice,
prescribe solutions, recommend goals, develop strategies, teach new skills, or provide education”
(Moore et al., 2014, p. 5). Peer wellbeing coaches play an important role in mentoring students in
an approachable way that is different than a professor or dean on campus. The purpose of being a
wellbeing coach is for the student to achieve self-growth as well as gain confidence in their own
abilities, “Coaching is an especially powerful methodology when it comes to stimulating
individual behavior change because it is focused on helping students grow into becoming more
autonomous experts in their own wellbeing and personal path” (Moore et al., 2004, p.5).
On a college campus, peer wellbeing coaches play an important role in advancing the
mission of the college and the Connections curriculum. Today’s college students face multiple
health and wellbeing stressors that impact their academic success and student experience. The
National College Health Assessment II (NCHA) is a national research survey that recorded 20

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 105

million college students’ reports on wellbeing including individual stress levels. When asked
about their overall stress, 92% of students reported that they felt average, above average, or
tremendously stressed. The 92% of students equated to 18,400,000 college students feeling
stressed out at college (American College Health Association, 2019).

Stress negatively impacts students’ sleep schedules, academics, and overall well-being.
Students’ daily stress can accumulate and, “Given that chronic stress directly damages health, the
positive emotions generated by coaching will potentially be shown to reduce the incidence of
disease symptoms, preventable chronic diseases, and early mortality” (Moore et al., p.7). In
today’s society, mental health is a topic of conversation in almost every environment; work,
school, and also at home. The importance of mental health awareness is finally receiving the
national recognition needed, but more work is needed to decrease the attached stigma.

Mental health stigmas are especially prominent on college campuses, which is why peer
wellbeing coaches are crucial in a college setting. Peer wellbeing coaches are not consultants,
mentors, or therapists. A peer wellbeing coach is a supporter who enables future focused goal
setting. Students may be intimidated to meet with therapists or mental health professionals due
to their clinical approach of focusing on resolving difficulties and diving into the students’
psychological past. A peer wellbeing coach focuses on “supporting the individual’s personal and
professional growth based on self- initiated change in pursuit of specific actionable outcomes”
(Moore et.al, p.21). Peer wellbeing coaches assist students positively, by motivating them to
acknowledge and strengthen the areas in which they may struggle: “today’s college students
need programs that help them learn to manage the pressure they feel as a result of the high
expectations they place on themselves” (Sommers, 2015,p. 3). When students need guidance, a

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 106

peer who has experienced the same college stressors and has learned how to cope with the
stressors is relatable and often preferred to professional clinicians.

A wellbeing coach has been trained to meet with students one-on-one in hopes to guide
the individual in the best way they see fit. Coaches support and acknowledge their students by
being empathetic and patient. The goal of a coach is to listen and allow the student to verbally
work through their struggles with the support of their coach throughout the process. The coaches
themselves must be aware of their own self-care before they succumb to burnout which is, “a
stress syndrome that is prevalent among those working in health and helping professions. It
happens when people try to reach unrealistic goals and end up depleting their energy and losing
touch with themselves and others in the process” (Freudenberger & Richelson, 1980, p.19).
Wellbeing coaches know that the student is an expert in their own life, therefore coaches
motivate the goals that the student suggests, and guide the student in a positive direction when
achieving their goals.

Although mental health professionals are necessary when prescribing medication and
diagnosing mental illness, peer wellbeing coaches are implemented when students need a peer’s
support and guidance;

“despite their potential usefulness, some students, especially those who might be
particularly vulnerable, do not use university support services. Students who experience
difficulties coping in their new social and academic environments might have further
difficulties achieving their academic potential, which might have implications for their
self-esteem and future earning potential” (Cooke et., al, 2007, p.2).
Students prefer a peer’s support when shaping their future goals and aspirations so that they have
someone to relate to, “although all of these resources are valuable, more are needed. Peer

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 107

wellbeing coaches can help guide students in the right direction by developing and implementing
an action plan to activate their goal setting desires” (Moore et. al., 2004, p.20).

The support system needed for each individual student varies, which also makes the
resources necessary for each student different: How students evaluate available social support is
important. Greater satisfaction with social support predicted less willingness to seek counselling
in students (Constantine, Wilton & Caldwell, 2003). Second, perceived social support is thought
to act as a buffer against stressful circumstances, which explains why higher levels of perceived
social support are linked to beneficial outcomes, such as psychological well-being (Sarason &
Sarason, 2003)…Thus, students who perceive higher levels of social support and are more
satisfied with this support might be less likely to use university support services. (Julal, 2013,
p.372). The way in which students access campus resources varies based on the individual’s
comfort. Peer wellbeing coaches are implemented so that every student has a resource and
support system no matter how big or how small the hurdle may be.

The goal of this study was to collect data on the Peer Wellbeing Program that was
implemented at Connecticut College in Fall 2019. This was a new program that was brought to
Connecticut College through the Office of Wellbeing and Health Promotion so that students had
a support system of peers that they could contact if they needed guidance. Connecticut College is
a small liberal arts school of 1,903 students. The small population posed a challenge when
recruiting participants for this study. The most common factor that influences college students’
well-being is stress. Similar to the data from (ACHA), stress was the main concern for students
at Connecticut College ; therefore, when conducting this study, stress was the main factor
examined. The Peer Wellbeing Coaching Program is both beneficial for the coaches as well as

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 108

the students. Each student coach develops skills that are applicable in any career field that they
choose to pursue.

The coaching program consists of both coaches and interns. Interns are more qualified
than coaches and get paid for their internship through the Office of Wellbeing. Interns are trained
coaches and can lead coaching sessions, but they also have more responsibility. The interns work
with the Office of Wellbeing to promote wellbeing across campus. The intern position is held by
four student leaders, and the coaching team consists of 15 coaches. The intern position is a
desirable one, which is a goal for coaches to one day become. The coaches and interns work side
by side promoting wellbeing throughout the college campus and are seen as role models by
students seeking support.

Method
Research Design

A paired samples t-test research study was conducted to examine the impact of the peer
wellbeing coaching program, on students’ overall wellbeing at Connecticut College. The
experimenter asked participants a series of questions that were both Likert Scale and open-ended
on a survey in order to collect data regarding our participants’ overall well-being before, and
after a peer wellbeing coaching session.

Participants
The participants used in this study were Connecticut College students from the

Psychology 100 introductory course. Students from the Psychology 100 course who attended a
coaching session received 45 minutes of course credit through their SONA account. This study

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 109

consisted of 20 female participants and 4 male participants. The participants’ ages ranged from
18-22 years old and this study was open to all four class years.

Materials
Peer Wellbeing Coaching Code of Ethics

The Peer Wellbeing Coaching Code of Ethics (Appendix A) was created for coaches
when undergoing training. The Peer Wellbeing Code of Ethics states the ethical responsibilities
that a peer wellbeing coach must demonstrate prior to meeting with a student in a one on one
setting.
Ethics and Integrity

The Ethics and Integrity (Appendix B) form was created and administered during
coaching training. The Ethics and Integrity form states the ethical responsibilities that coaches
must be accountable for regarding their own personal wellbeing and health. Peer wellbeing
coaches must be cognizant of their own wellbeing before assisting other students.
Initial Session Inventory Question Survey

The first measure used was an experimenter designed Initial Session Inventory Question
Survey (Appendix C) which consisted of a Likert Scale survey with 10 questions relating to the
participants’ overall well-being prior to attending a peer wellbeing coaching session. The
questions were both positive and negative statements regarding emotions that influence
individuals’ wellbeing. For questions (1-9) participants responded to each question by circling
one of the four options, “1 Strongly Agree”, “2 Agree”, “3 Disagree”, or “4 Strongly Disagree”.
For Question 10 when rating their stress, participants responded with one of the four options, “1
No Stress”, “2 Less than Average”, “3 Average”, or “4 Above Average”. Participants recorded

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 110

their responses based on their state of wellbeing prior to the coaching session. There was also an
optional additional comments section provided for students to fill out.
Wellbeing/ Coach Student Information Form

The Wellbeing/ Coach Student Information Form consisted of seven questions that
required a fill in response. The seven questions were based on demographic data such as name,
class year, gender, preferred pronouns, goals of the appointment, whether they were here for
research hours, and what coach they were going to meet. The purpose of this form was for
coaches to gain insight about the student in preparation for the session. It was also created for
data collection for the purpose of this study. This form was administered with the Initial Session
Inventory Question Survey prior to the coaching session. There was also an optional additional
comments section provided for students to fill out.
Coaching Sample Meeting Dialogue

The Coaching Sample Meeting Dialogue (Appendix D) was experimenter produced
which was introduced to coaches when they underwent training in preparation for each coaching
session. The dialogue template was provided for coaches in sessions to assist when guiding
discussion with students.
Post Session Inventory Questions

The Post Session Inventory Question Survey (Appendix F) consisted of a Likert scale 15
question survey that related to the participant’s overall wellbeing after the peer wellbeing
coaching session. The questions were both positive and negative emotions that influence
wellbeing. Participants responded with one of the four options, “1 Strongly Agree”, “2 Agree”,
“3 Disagree”, or “4 Strongly Disagree”. Participants responded based on their overall state of

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 111

wellbeing after the peer wellbeing coaching session. There was also an optional additional
comments section provided for students to fill out.
Procedure

Participants were recruited through the Psychology 100 course and given 45 minutes of
SONA credit for their participation. Participants were required to email [email protected]
to schedule an appointment. When arriving at their appointment, participants were met by their
coach and asked to complete the Initial Session Inventory Question Survey (Appendix C) and the
Wellbeing Coach/ Student Information Form. After the paperwork was completed, participants
met with a peer wellbeing coach for a 45-minute session. The peer wellbeing coach followed the
Coaching Sample Meeting Dialogue (Appendix D) which guided conversation in a professional
way. Once the session was completed, the participants were asked to complete the Post Session
Inventory Questions (Appendix E), which the coach distributed. Participants’ data remained
confidential and were collected by the researcher to analyze and conclude results.

Results
In order to test whether a peer wellbeing coaching session increased overall wellbeing, a
paired samples t- test was run using data collected from the pre-test and post-test survey. The p-
values of questions 1-10 on both the pre- test and post- test were compared to see whether the
peer wellbeing coaching session had a statistically significant positive impact on one’s overall
well-being. Question 1 results revealed that participants’ anxiety levels were higher on the pre-
test (M= 2.46, SD= 0.72) when compared to the post- test (M= 3.29, SD= 0.55); t(23)=-5, p <
.001 showing that the coaching session decreased anxiety. Question 2 asked participants
regarding feeling overwhelmed prior to seeing a peer wellbeing coach, (M= 2.62, SD= 0. 71) and
their feelings after seeing a peer wellbeing coach, (M= 3.29, SD= 0.55); t(23)=-4.65, p < .001.

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 112

Question 3 asked participants about feeling disorganized before a session; the pre- test reported
(M= 3.25, SD= .53) and the post-test showed an improvement when feeling disorganized after a
coaching session, (M= 3.54, SD= .51); t (23)=-2.59, p=.016.

Question 4 results showed that coaching sessions did not improve motivation among
students on the pre-test (M=1.58, SD= 0.50) compared to the post- test (M=1.54, SD=0.51);
t(23)= 0.33, p=.747. Question 5 results showed that focus on the pre- test (M= 1.71, SD= 0.45)
improved after meeting with a peer wellbeing coach, (M= 1.58, SD= 0.50); t(23)=1.81,
p=.083(see Figure 2). Question 6 recorded students’ optimism before a session, (M= 1.79, SD=
.59) and after a meeting with a peer wellbeing coach, (M= 1.58, SD= 0.58); t(23)= 2.00, p=.057,
which reported a significant positive shift in optimism after a coaching session. Question 7
recorded no significance when a student was considering themself as an outgoing individual
before the session, (M= 1.71, SD= 0.62), compared to after meeting with a peer wellbeing coach
(M=1.67, SD=1.67); t(23)=0.44, p=.664. Question 8 showed a significant decline in nervousness
when comparing the pre-test (M= 2.83, SD= 0.56) and the post- test (M= 3.21, SD= .59); t(23)= -
2.84, p=.009. Question 9 reported that peer wellbeing coaching sessions did not significantly
improve confidence, before a session (M= 1.79, SD= 0.51) compared to after (M= 1.71, SD=
0.46); t(23)= 0.811, p=.426.

Lastly, Question 10 reported that stress levels did not significantly decline prior to a
coaching session, (M= 2.91, SD= 0.68); compared to after a peer wellbeing coaching session,
(M= 3.23, SD= 0.68); t(23)= -1.14, p= .266 (see Figure 3).

Questions 11-14 on the post- test reported that after meeting with a peer wellbeing coach
most students felt as though the session positively influenced their overall wellbeing. For
example, Question 12 asked participants to rate on a 1-4 scale (1 Strongly Agree, 2 Agree, 3

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 113

Disagree, and 4 Strongly Disagree) whether meeting with a wellbeing coach was beneficial or
not. Nine participants rated the session as a (1 Strongly Agree), and 13 participants rated the
session as a (2 Agree), which shows that all of the 22 students who attended a session benefited
in some way.

The most common reasons reported for students to schedule an appointment with a peer
wellbeing coach was for nutrition advice, sleep, or most commonly stress (see Figure 1).
Students not indicating their reason for coming in for an appointment was also a common
response. The participants mostly consisted of first years and sophomores (2023: 13 participants,
2022: 7 participants). Juniors and seniors were the minority year of participants within the study
(2021: 1 participant, 2020: 3 participants) (see Figure 2). The results report that there was a
significant improvement of participants’ overall wellbeing after meeting with a peer wellbeing
coach, and that they would likely meet with a coach again.

Discussion
The results showed that the peer wellbeing coaching program increased student’s overall
wellbeing after speaking with a coach supporting the general hypothesis. Specific variables were
looked at such as anxiety, nervousness, and optimism, which decreased after meeting with a
coach, increasing participants’ wellbeing. The questions on the pre and post-test were
specifically worded regarding emotions that were paired with feelings of stress because the
primary ailment on a college campus is feelings of stress. The data collected from this study
showed that the wellbeing coaching program is a beneficial program to continue to have on
campus due to the participants’ overall wellbeing significantly increasing after a session.
The data were collected from 20 female participants and 4 male participants, which
shows that the majority of responses given were from females. Questions 11-14 on the post- test

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 114

were unable to be coded due to only 22 participants answering the questions on the back of the
survey. All female participants also identified using pronouns She/Her and all male participants
identified using pronouns He/Him. The data collected also showed that 54% of participants were
first years in the class of 2023. This survey targeted first year students because it was an
Introductory Psychology course that is comprised of mostly first years. In future research I
would open the study to upper level Psychology courses, which would more evenly distribute the
participant pool across all four class years.

Participants were not asked to identify their race and ethnicity in the Wellbeing Coach/
Student Information Form. If I were to continue my research, I would look at race and ethnicity
as variables and investigate whether the program is appealing to all racial and ethnic groups. All
of the peer wellbeing coaches that aided in this research were White females, which may be the
reason that students do not view this program as racially inclusive. The fact that the coaches
were White females may also be a reason why the sample consisted of mostly female
participants, because male students may be less likely to relate to a female coach.

A limitation of this study was the small sample size consisting of only Psychology 100
students who may have sought out the sessions for course credit over seeking out personal
wellbeing advancement or understanding. Another limitation was that the study was only open
for six weeks, which was a short time span allocated for students to sign up to participate.
Another limitation was that two participants did not complete the last four questions of the post-
test, which affected the abundance of data that I was able to code. A limitation of this study was
that there was no control group therefore the results are likely inflated due to a Bonferroni
correction not being applied to the results.

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 115

A solution as to how we could make this program more inclusive could be by recruiting
male coaches so that male participants feel more comfortable. Another way to make the program
more inclusive could be to recruit coaches of all races and ethnicities that are represented on
campus so that all students have a safe space to meet with a coach.

When undergoing training each peer wellbeing coach at Connecticut College was
required to read the Peer Wellbeing Coaching Code of Ethics (Appendix A) and Ethics and
Integrity (Appendix B). These reading requirements ensure that each peer wellbeing coach is
ethical when providing guidance to students seeking support. When conducting further research
on this program, I would also include a multicultural psychology required reading for coaches.
Both (Appendix A) and (Appendix B) are necessary for coaches when providing ethical guidance,
but a reading providing examples of dialogue when speaking with students from other racial/
ethnic backgrounds would be beneficial as well. In conclusion, the interpreted data suggest that
the Peer Wellbeing Coaching Program is a beneficial program to implement on a college campus
due to students’ overall wellbeing increasing after a coaching session, and there is much room
for growth and further development if allotted the proper resources.

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 116

References

American College Health Association (2019). American College Health Association-National
College Health Assessment II: Undergraduate Student Executive Summary Spring 2019.
Silver Spring, MD: American College Health Association.

Cooke, R., Bewick, B., Barkham, M., Bradley, M., & Audin, K. (2006) Measuring, monitoring
and managing the psychological well-being of first year university students, British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 34(4), 505-517. doi: 10.1080/03069880600942624

Constantine, M. G., Wilton, L., & Caldwell, L. D. (2003). The role of social support in
moderating the relationship between psychological distress and willingness to seek
psychological help among Black and Latino college students. Journal of College
Counselling, 6, 155–165. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2003.tb00236.x

Freudenberger, H. J., & Richelson, G. (1980). Burn-out: the high cost of high achievement. 1st
ed., Anchor Press ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.

Julal, F. S. (2013). Use of student support services among university students: Associations with
problem-focused coping, experience of personal difficulty and psychological distress.
British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 41, 414–425.
doi:10.1080/03069885.2012.741680

Julal, F. S. (2016). Predictors of undergraduate students’ university support service use during
the first year of university. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 44(4), 371–381.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2015.1119232

Moore, M., & Jackson, E. (2014). Health and wellness coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirove, & D.
Ashley (Eds.), The complete handbook of Coaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 117

Moore, M., Tschannen- Moran, B., Drake, D., Campone, F., & Kauffman, C. (2005). Relational
flow: A theoretical model of the intuitive dance of coaching. Proceedings of the Third
International Coach Federation Coaching Research Symposium. Lexington, KY:
International Coach Federation.

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (2009). Social support: Mapping the construct. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 113–120. doi:10.1177/0265407509105526

Sommers, J. (2015). An Examination of the Effects of Peer Group Coaching on the Wellbeing of
Undergraduate Students. University of Minnesota.

Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 145–161. doi: 10.1177/002214651039559

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 118

Figure 1. This bar graph illustrates each participant’s reasoning for meeting with a peer
wellbeing coach. The number on the x- axis indicates the most common reasons for attending a
session. Some reasoning for attending a session overlapped and were counted in more than one
category.

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 119

** ** *
*

Figure 2. This bar graph illustrates Questions 1-5 on the pre and post test. The bars with an
asterisk labeled signify the questions that had a significant result (* p < .05, ** p < .01).
Question 1 regarded participants' anxiety levels. Question 2 asked students about feelings of
overwhelment after a coaching session. Question 3 asked about organization. Question 4
regarded motivation. Question 5 asked about feelings of focus.

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 120

**
*

Figure 3. This bar graph illustrates Questions 6-10 on the pre and post test. The bars with an
asterisk labeled signify the questions that had a significant result (* p < .05, ** p < .01).
Question 6 asked about optimism. Question 7 recorded students' view of themself as an outgoing
individual or not. Question 8 asked students about their nervousness. Question 9 surrounded
feelings of motivation. Question 10 included feelings of stress.

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 121
Peer Wellbeing Coaching Code of Ethics
(Appendix A)

I value my role as a peer wellbeing coach:
In order to best fulfill that role, I will

- Grant individuals respect and dignity
- Recognize that through patience and understanding, individuals are constantly growing

and learning
- Acknowledge that the client is an expert in their own life

I value and know my role as a caring helper:
In order to best fulfill that role, I will

- Offer myself as a link between students and the professional services on campus
- Maintain confidentiality, except when, to my best judgement, the person is in physical or

mental danger which could result in self-harm or harm to others, has a problem beyond
my ability to assist, or discloses information which I must report according to law or
campus safety.

I value and know my role as a peer wellbeing coach:
In order to best fulfill that role, I will

- Offer information that I am qualified to say and with the greatest accuracy possible
- Understand when I am in over my head and accept supervision from my advisor and

other professional staff

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 122

- Not allow the client, peer wellbeing coaching relationship to be taken outside of the
session

I value and know my role as an individual:
In order to best fulfill that role, I will

- Understand that my primary responsibility is myself
- Not allow my coaching duties to interfere with my own goals and school work
- Not allow my coaching duties to put my own wellbeing at risk

I value and know my role as a role model:
In order to best fulfill that role, I will

- Make healthy and positive decisions in my own life that reflect what I coach which
includes managing college social life

- Challenge myself to become a better version of myself everyday physically, mentally,
and emotionally for overall positive growth

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 123
Ethics and Integrity
(Appendix B)

As a peer wellbeing coach, you should remember these five principles when seeing a client:

1. All people deserve my respect
- Respect is given freely in the coaching setting which means respecting one’s
thoughts, experiences, and situations even if it may differ from my personal
opinion.

2. I have the right to make mistakes, I am not going to be perfect
- Making a mistake is human. As a coach it is my responsibility to admit to my
mistakes, apologize if necessary and plan to learn and move forward.

3. I will never use my position of influence to negatively affect another person
- Ethically, it is my job as a coach to never take advantage of a weakness or
vulnerability of any client you are ever seeing. (i.e. asking for favors)
- Using my coaching position for unhealthy relationships

4. I must make intentional decisions that support my own wellbeing, regardless of what
“everyone else” is doing
- I will work to feel secure in the decisions I make for myself based on values
- Take ownership of my decisions

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 124

5. I will take my own advice
- I take time for personal reflection on my own wellbeing and get support when
needed
- I coach with integrity and credibility is essential; I hold myself to high
expectations as I would my clients

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 125

Initial Session Inventory Questions
(Appendix C)

1. I feel anxious this semester
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

2. I feel overwhelmed this semester
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

3. I feel disorganized this semester
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

4. I am a motivated individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

5. I am a focused individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

6. I am an optimistic individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

7. I am an outgoing individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 126
8. I feel nervous
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree
9. I am a confident individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree
10. How would you rate your overall level of stress experienced:
(1) No stress (2) Less than Average (3) Average (4) Above Average

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 127

Coaching Sample Meeting Dialogue: (Research Administration Included)
Fall 2019
45 minute sessions

(Appendix D)

Coach Hi, I’m (***). Welcome….
Student
Coach: Hi

Coach Thanks for coming in today.
Just to clarify, by coming to a peer wellbeing
coaching appointment through PSY 100 today,
you will be given a 45min SONA credit added
to your account by Professor Marshall once the
session is completed.

As this is part of an independent study project, *Give student pre-meeting

we are collecting data to learn more about the survey and student info sheet

new peer wellbeing coaching program is to (2 forms)

students at Conn. I’m going to ask you to please *Collect this

fill out these two quick forms before the session

begins. The researcher will be reviewing your

pre and post surveys. At the end of the

study/end of semester, the researcher will be

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 128

making summarizing insights about the program
and making recommendations to the director of
the Office of Wellbeing and Health Promotion
regarding the program. All of your answers will
not be attributed to you.

Have the student fill out student info. and pre-
survey

Coach: So what I thought we could do, is I can tell you Acknowledge how they are
a little bit about what you can expect from this entering the space
meeting and then we could chat about what
brings you in today.

The Peer Wellbeing Coaches are here to help
you move forward with your wellbeing goals, I
am here as a thought partner.
As a PSY 100 student coming in today for
research credit, I will be letting Professor
Marshall know that you participated in a peer
wellbeing coaching session, but I will not be
sharing the details of our conversation.
The purpose of this study is to ultimately inform
the Office about the program and the needs of

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 129

students on campus. We are hoping for your
honest feedback and full participation in the
coaching process. I also ask that although you
are participating for class credit, that you take
advantage of the peer wellbeing coaches
guidance. The purpose of this study is to
ultimately inform the Office about the program
and the needs of students on campus. We are
hoping for your honest feedback and full
participation in the coaching process.
Our philosophy comes from the belief that you
are an expert in your own life and you are smart,
creative and resourceful.

We will talk about what is important to you,
identify a few goals, and solutions that are most
helpful to you.

I do want to make it clear that peer coaching is
not mental health counseling -- but if that is
something you are interested in, I can certainly
get you connected with Student Counseling
Services. I am also not a consultant - so I am not

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 130

going to do the work for you or give you expert
advice. I am here to help you strategize and find
your own way.

Our conversations are private -- so what we talk
about, I am not sharing around campus.
I am here to help you, so if there is something
that is really concerning to you, i can get you
connected to the appropriate professional.

I take some notes as we chat, so that if you
choose to meet again, I can refer back to them.
After I our meeting, I store my notes, in a file in
the Office of Wellbeing and Health Promotion.

Do you have any questions for me before we
start?

Student: What do you mean by private? Are you going to
tell people?

Coach: What we talk about here stays here -- unless you
are in danger.
If there is something concerning - we will figure
it out together.
Feel free to ask me a question any time

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 131

Coach: Sample language - build rapport Give chance to settle into
How is your day going? (some small talk to space,
break the ice) Mindfully set stage so the
Weather… focus is on the conversation
Classes….
Meal in harris...

Student: It’s good, I’m super busy and just finished a
test.

Coach: So where are you from? (little rapport build) Ask about home?
Involved in campus?
Favorite class?

Student: I grew up in California

Coach: Oh -- what part?

Student: In LA

Coach: How has it been moving to New England?

Student: It’s ok - I am really far from all my friends and
family but I have an Aunt in New Jersey I might
get to see at Thanksgiving

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 132

Coach: New Jersey isn’t too far. Have you met any
interesting people since you’ve been at Conn?

Student: Yah… I have a few friends from my FYS and
we eat dinner together most of the time.

Coach: So tell me what brings you in today….

Coach: I want to be mindful of time…..
wrap up While I know you are here for research credits, I
do want to support you and your goals -- would
you like me to follow up with you? Via email?
Make a second appointment (not for research
hours)

Coach Once again, this is part of an independent *Staple pre and post together

research project so I am going to ask you to fill with student information and

out this one last survey about the coaching file in black cabinet under the

program before you leave. fish

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 133
Post Session Inventory Questions:
(Appendix E)

1. After meeting with the peer wellbeing coach, I feel anxious
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

2. After meeting with the peer wellbeing coach, I feel overwhelmed
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

3. After meeting with the peer wellbeing coach, I feel disorganized
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

4. I am a motivated individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

5. I am a focused individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

6. I am an optimistic individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

7. I am an outgoing individual
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

8. I feel nervous

PEER WELLBEING COACHING 134
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

9. I am a social individual

(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

10. I feel stressed

(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

11. I would meet with a wellbeing coach again

(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

12. I feel that meeting with a wellbeing coach was beneficial

(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

13. After meeting with the peer wellbeing coach, I set goals that I feel are achievable

(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

14. I feel motivated after meeting with a wellbeing coach

(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree

15. After meeting with the peer wellbeing coach, I have a better handle on my health and
wellbeing

(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree
Additional Comments:

135

Review Articles

Running head: NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 136

Neuroscience of Volition:
A Brief Analysis of Psychological Studies Addressing the Free Will Debate

Ahmed AboHamad

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 137

Neuroscience of Volition: A Brief Analysis of Psychological Studies Addressing the
Free Will Debate

Humans have always wondered about the brain in curiosity and amazement, generating
many philosophical questions and thoughts. “Do humans have free will?”, “What is
consciousness?”, “Can humans live authentically?”, and “What are the bases of bases of
epistemology and beliefs?” are some of the many questions that have puzzled humans for many
centuries. Many philosophical schools and doctrines have offered theories and answers, though
not every answer has been developed through empirical evidence. Although for centuries the key
methodology of theorizing about the human brain has been conceptual analysis, new
methodologies of neuroscience and neuroepistemology could profoundly reform our
understanding of ourselves and our minds. This review examines some of the major evidence
offered by neuroscience as we attempt to answer philosophical questions related to free will,
epistemology, and morality.
Neuroscience and Free Will

For centuries, philosophers and scientists have been curious about the degree to which
humans do have control over their actions. It has always been challenging for humans to analyze
their decision-making process and to examine their ability to determine their own fate. In
contemporary philosophy, the capacity of humans to freely choose between alternatives or to
make decisions independently of restraints is called free will. In the past centuries, those
restraints have been mostly viewed as divine, which means that they are determined by gods or
supernatural powers. Nonetheless, our understanding of those restraints has developed with the
advancement of science to include natural and social factors. With the advancement of physics

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 138

and biology, it is still challenging to determine whether humans have free will since our
cognitive functions are highly influenced by genetics, environment, and brain chemistry.
Significance

The free will debate is central to all core philosophical disciplines: epistemology, ethics,
and aesthetics. In other words, the extent to which humans have the ability to think and act freely
can deeply affect our understanding of the nature of knowledge and beliefs, our judgments about
morality, and our aesthetic values and appreciation. The common arguments for free will have
been grounded upon the subjective feelings and experiences of freedom to think and act. Those
arguments have also been supported by religions, which claim that divine revelation supports the
notion of free will and responsibility of humans. Additionally, the universal belief of the moral
responsibility of humans for their personal actions and choices underlies the current notions of
law and justice, making the belief in free will accepted as a subjective, pragmatic truth. The
arguments against free will in contemporary philosophy could be based mainly on the biological
and physical concepts of genetic and environmental factors that shape the human brain. The
human brain could be affected not only by specific inherited genes, but also by various
epigenetic factors in early development and childhood like social experiences, nutrition and
diets, and chemical or radiation exposure. Those genetic and epigenetic factors impact
subconscious and conscious brain activities through influencing cognitive abilities and
stimulating emotional and behavioral patterns. If the human brain is shaped and deeply
influenced by genetic factors and environmental conditions that individuals do not control, some
philosophers conclude that humans do not have free will.

Although philosophers of mind have offered significant arguments for both sides of the
free will debate, not every argument has been based on empirical evidence. Various arguments

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 139

about the philosophy of mind have existed for thousands of years; however, humans were first

able to measure the awake human brain activity in meaningful ways only since the last century.

With the advancement of neuroscience and scientific methodologies, scientists have been able to

examine the validity of both sides of the free will debate though empirical evidence. Empirical

research could profoundly transform our understanding of the human mind and the decision-

making process. Since 1983, Benjamin Libet and his colleagues have published pioneering

studies in the empirical investigation of the initiation of action and free will. Those studies have

been the foundation for the field of the neuroscience of free will.

Benjamin Libet

In the early 1980s, Libet conducted a series of experiments that show that decisions

might be made in the brain prior to an individual become consciously aware of them (Libet,

Wright, & Gleason, 1993).

Key concepts:

Cathode Ray Oscilloscope: a tool that is usually used in

graphing the frequency and amplitude of electrical signals

(Martinez et al., 2018). Libet adjusted it to act as a timer

through a single dot traveling in a circular motion similar

to the movement of a second hand around the face of an Figure 1: A visual Illustration of the Libet’s
analog clock. The dot was set to travel with a constant Clock. The red dot rotated clockwise every
angular velocity like the time intervals in a clock face but 2560ms, spending 43ms between intervals
about 25 times as fast. With a total of 60 intervals, the dot (Martinez et al., 2018).

spent approximately 43 milliseconds between each interval. The change in intervals could be

then be easily translated into approximate time.

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 140

Electroencephalogram (EEG): An electrophysiological technique used for monitoring brain
activity through small electrodes placed along the scalp. EEG measures the electrical activity of
neurons in the cerebral cortex, the outermost region of the brain associated with higher cognitive
processes. Neural signals and impulses are communicated through the passage of changing
electrical potentials along the membrane of a muscle cell or nerve cell that are called action
potentials. As action potentials or electrical signals are transmitted across different regions of the
cerebral cortex, change in voltage could be monitored through EEG electrodes. The variations in
voltage could be processed to monitor changes in neuronal activity in localized areas of the
cerebral cortex.
Electromyograph (EMG): A technique used to detect the definite time of voluntary motor
movements through electrodes installed on the skin over the activated muscles involved in
movement.
Method

The test subjects were in front of an oscilloscope timer, and their brains were scanned
through EEG electrodes affixed to their scalps. They were instructed to flex their wrists or make
a hand movement whenever they wanted or had the urge to move and to watch the oscilloscope,
noting the exact position of the dot on the clock at the moment they took the decision to make a
movement.
Findings

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 141

Analyzing the EMG and EEG recordings of each trial with respect to the timing of the

movement, Libet and his colleagues found that the test subjects reported deciding to flex about

150 milliseconds before their muscles were flexed (with 50 milliseconds margin of errors

calculated through control tests of the equipment). However, EEG showed signs of electrical

brain activity, originating in the secondary motor cortex and involved in the initiation of the

action, that started approximately 500 milliseconds, on average, before the action. In other

words, a mounting brain activity

associated with the action was

detected about 300 milliseconds

before the test subjects reported

being aware of their conscious

decision to make an action. This

mounting electrical brain Figure 2: A visual representation of the findings of Libet:
activity that is reflected by the precommitment is before W and postcommitment is after W
EEG recordings is called (Information Philosopher Web).

readiness potential.

Interpretations and perceptions

Since the readiness potential is initiated in the brain before an individual makes a

conscious decision to act, it could be interpreted that conscious decisions are preceded by

unconscious mounting of electrical brain activity. That suggests that a decision, even if it seems

to be freely made, could be made unconsciously before an individual experiences agency and

becomes consciously aware of making this decision. Hence, some philosophers and scientists

have concluded that the readiness potentials, unconscious processes, are the actual initiator of

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 142

actions, denying the role of free will in making decisions. If unconscious cognitive processes
initiate actions before humans become consciously aware of their desire to do them, then free
will could be an illusion (Lavazza, 2016).

Libet did not conclude by rejecting free will; instead he suggested the possibility for the
existence of a veto power, “free won't,” over a decision that might happen unconsciously. In
other words, humans could have the will to consciously stop an action even if it was initiated
unconsciously (Libet et al., 1993). Although consciousness might not be involved in the
initiation of actions, Libet indicated that it might still give humans the will to suppress certain
actions that were initiated by the unconscious mind. Libet did not offer any empirical evidence
for this “free won’t” idea, and it was challenged by Patrick Haggard and his colleagues through
an experiment that shows that the free won’t decisions to inhibit or delay may itself depend on
unconscious preparatory neural activities (Haggard, Filevich, & Kühn, 2013).
Critical Examination of the Libet’s Experiment:

One of the most common critiques of the conclusion that Libet’s experiment disprove
free will was provided by Alfred Mele (Mele, 2010). Since readiness potentials were detected a
few hundred milliseconds before individuals reported being aware of their decision to move,
Mele questioned the accuracy, objectivity, and the reliability of individuals self-reporting the
timing of their decisions. In his book Effective Intentions: The Power of Conscious Will, Mele
argues that it is very challenging to objectively define the self-reported moment of conscious
awareness of decisions. He claims that he was a subject in an experiment with a design that was
similar to Libet’s experiment. He was instructed to flex or make a movement whenever he had
the urge to and to report where the dot was on the clock at the moment of intention. Mele
reported that he had difficulty locating specific proximal urges or intention to flex (Mele, 2010).

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 143

A later study by Dennett and Kinsbourne (1992) attributed the bias in self-reporting the
moment of conscious awareness of decisions to the participants’ attention shift that might cause
temporal mismatches between the conscious awareness and the perceived position of the dot on
the oscilloscope (Dennett & Kinsbourne, 1992). They argued that Libet’s experiment completely
relied on subjective self-reporting; therefore, the results might have had various biases due to
retrospective construction and referral of memories. They further criticized the timing results as
inaccurate since the study involved few subjects, inadequate controls, and it was never
replicated. Additionally, it is possible that the intention to report the timing could have
influenced the neural activation and the brain activity of the participants, making it difficult to
precisely process the decision to move and to note the time simultaneously. Consequently, the
timing of conscious awareness of decisions is a significant challenge to Libet’s experiment.

Another concern related to Libet’s experiment was the interpretation of the readiness
potential. Libet claimed that the readiness potential reflects neural activity that both represents a
will to move and movement itself. Even though the readiness potential could be correlated to
decision and movement, no strong evidence was provided to validate that readiness potential
caused the will and the movement. Decisions and movements must be reflected through a chain
of preceding neural activities in the brain, but those neural activities do not necessarily cause the
decisions or the movements. Jeff Miller and Judy Trevena (2010) conducted a study that
suggests that the readiness potentials in Libet's experiments do not represent decisions to move,
but rather are merely reflections that the brain is paying attention. Their experiment was similar
to Libet’s experiment but modified through playing audio tones that asks volunteers to decide
whether to tap a key or not. They found that the same readiness potential was detected regardless
of whether participants decided to tap or not, which suggests that readiness potentials do not

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 144

necessarily cause the decision to tap or move (Trevena & Miller, 2010). A critical point that was
noted by Mele was that the permanent storage of EEG data in Libet’s experiment was dependent
upon the hand movements as the movement was a necessary factor for the averaging procedure
and calculations (Mele, 2010). If participants choose not to move, no EEG data would be
analyzed, so any readiness potential that happened without being followed by a decision to act or
move was not detected. This critique shows how Libet’s interpretation of readiness potential
describes only a limited subset of decision-making processes.

Another important study that challenges the traditional interpretation of readiness
potential was conducted by Aaron Schurger and others (Schurger, Sitt, & Dehaene, 2012).
Schurger and his colleagues suggest that readiness potentials detected before voluntary actions
are not necessarily causal of the will to do those actions. Schurger asserts that readiness
potentials are general phenomena of neural activities that precede spontaneous actions, which are
common to both vertebrates and invertebrates. Schurger criticizes the backward selection bias in
Libet’s experiment, which analyzed only brain activities that end with actual movements.
Schurger repeated Libet’s experiment with the modification they name Libetus Interruptus. The
Libetus interruptus adds random audible interruptions to the participants, asking them to make a
movement as quickly as possible after the click. However, participants observed the rotating
clock and noted the clock's position when they make movements in both experiments. The main
difference between this and Libet’s experiment is that participants in Libet’s experiment initiated
a movement spontaneously at a random time without preplanning or being instructed to move.
Schurger thought that those spontaneous movements could have coincided with the random brain
activities of the participants. When humans have to make decisions based on their sensory inputs,
the nervous system accumulates potentials in favor of various possibilities, so participants would

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 145

be more likely to initiate a movement when their motor neurons come closer to a threshold.
Since participants in Libet’s experiment were asked to make spontaneous movements, the trigger
to act must be internal and possibly due to the random fluctuations of neural activities in the
brain.

Nonetheless, as the participants in the new experimental model were told to “click”
through an auditory note, Schurger found that the fastest response to the click would be observed
in participants who had their accumulation of neural activities nearer to the threshold at the time
of the tone. The readiness potential was missing or very minor in the EEG recordings of
participants with slower responses to the click. Through the Libetus interruptus experimental
model, Schurger explored the time intervals of readiness potentials, dividing them into two
phases: an early precommitment phase, the time before conscious awareness of action, and a late
postcommitment motor execution phase, after the moment of conscious intention. The
precommitment phase is dictated by stochastic fluctuations of neural activities with an evolving
spatial distribution and the late post commitment resembles the motor-execution phase. The
readiness potentials are the mounting parts of the brain fluctuations that coincide with the
decisions. Those results do not imply that participants’ brains decide to initiate movements
unintentionally or preconsciously, but they might suggest that the stochastic fluctuating activities
in their brains sometimes happens to reach a threshold based on which they make a choice.
Schurger concludes that readiness potentials, which were interpreted as pre-conscious decision
processes, do not in fact reflect a decision but they merely represent the nature of fluctuating,
spontaneous brain activities (Schurger et al., 2012).

Mele also believes that it is important to draw distinctions between certain concepts to
avoid the confusion and the misinterpretation of the experiment (Mele, Brass, & Furstenberg,

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 146

2019). Firstly, it is important to note the difference between a distal and a proximate intention. A
proximate intention is an intention to do something now, and distal intention is an intention to do
something in the future. Mele thinks that Libet’s study specifically examines only the proximal
decisions and intentions. Additionally, Mele thinks that the study fails to make distinctions
between actions, intentions, wants, and urges. Someone might have urges to make an action, but
those urges are not always to do things that this individual want to do. An individual also often
wants to do things, but that person does not always pursue that desire. A person also could also
have the intention to do a certain action, but that person might not necessarily follow the
intention with an action. Mele also notes that Libet’s experiment did not make a distinction
between intentions that are specific or unspecific. By making those distinctions, the limitations
of Libet’s experimental setup become clear and suggest that the approach barely examines how a
voluntary action occurs in a natural setting. However, it should be acknowledged that the
experiment only examined a simple decision-making process of when to execute a predefined
action. Hence, Mele believes that Libet’s study was narrow and that its results do not offer any
solid answers to the free will question (Mele et al., 2019).
Haggard’s Critique of Libet’s Proposal for the Idea of Free Won’t

Patrick Haggard and his colleagues designed an experiment in which subjects were asked
to either make a rapid key press action or to transiently inhibit executing the key press action
(Haggard, Filevich, & Kühn, 2013). Transient inhibition means brief delay of performing the
action after deciding to perform it rather than complete suppression of the behavioral output.
This transient inhibition process has the advantage of closely matching the action and inhibition
conditions since both include motor responses. Haggard proposed that the differing latencies

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 147

between rapid and delayed voluntary actions would give insights about impulse control and
provide further information about the accumulating brain activity prior to action.

The use of EEG allowed them to identify neural activity preceding quick actions,
transient actions, and the fluctuation around the time if they were instructed to decide or if they
freely chose to do an action. They found that larger pre-stimulus event related potentials (ERP)
amplitudes were correlated with conditions in which participants decided to do a quick action as
compared to ones in which they decided to delay their actions. The results suggested that the
neural activity before the moment of choosing to inhibit differed from that before participants
chose to act rapidly. Rapid actions on trials in which the participants were allowed to freely
decide were associated with stronger preparatory brain activities before the moment of choice.
Transient actions were associated with lower preparatory brain activities. However, those pre-
stimulus brain activities were absent when participants were instructed to inhibit, which could be
because the behaviors were dictated by the instruction cue. In other words, the results show that a
difference in amplitude in pre-stimulus brain activities between rapid and transient actions was
detected for trials in which participants were allowed to freely choose, but not for trials in which
they were instructed to inhibit the action. Those results suggest that free decisions to delay an
action were strongly driven by pre-stimulus unconscious brain activity. Haggard concludes that
those results challenge Libet’s dualistic view that decisions to inhibit action reflect a special
conscious veto or free won’t mechanisms, since those mechanisms themselves might be
consequences of other unconscious brain activities. As Haggard puts it, “Free won’t may be no
more free than free will,” (Haggard et al., 2013, p. 10).
Support of Libet’s Experiment

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 148

Although many scientists have criticized and challenged Libet’s experiment, other
scientists have conducted experiments that support Libet’s views that our conscious will could be
determined by preceding brain activity. One of the famous experiments that supported Libet by
showing that human decisions could be predicted from the brain activities that precede them was
published by Soon, Brass, Heinze, and Haynes (2008). Although Libet showed that readiness
potentials are detected throughout the supplementary motor area, they proposed that the
supplementary motor area might not be the exact brain area where the decision-making process
takes place (Soon et al., 2008). Additionally, they noted that Libet’s experiment was limited in
the sense that there was no option that involved more than two different choices; participants
were instructed to make a choice for only one behavioral option of moving their hands.

In Soon’s experiment, the participants were asked to look at a screen on which a stream
of letters were presented. They were instructed to press one of two buttons when they felt the
urge to and to remember the letter that was displayed at the moment when they decided which
button to press. Then a response mapping screen would appear in which they indicated which
letter was displayed by pressing another button. Button presses took place on average of 21.6
seconds apart, giving enough time to detect any potential buildup of neural activity in the cortex
without contamination by previous trials. The right and left buttons were pressed with equal
frequency, and 88.6% of intentions were reported to be consciously made about one second
before the movement itself. At the same time, the participants’ brains were imaged through
functional magnetic resonance imaging(fMRI), showing the locations of brain activities that are
correlated with which button was subsequently pressed. The fMRI relies on detecting changes of
cerebral blood flow that is coupled with neuronal activation.

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 149

By identifying characteristic local brain patterns associated with participants’ choices, the
researchers were able to predict specific outcomes of the participants’ motor decisions. This
allowed the researchers to not only investigate potential long-term determinants of human
intentions that precede conscious will, but also to separately examine each brain region and
determine how much information each brain area has about the outcomes of motor decisions.

Surprisingly, the brain activities that were associated with which button would be pressed
started seven seconds before the participants were consciously aware of their decision to press
the right or the left button. The researchers also noted that there was a three second delay before
the fMRI detected neural activities since the machine detects blood oxygenation, which is an
indirect response to brain areas being used. Taking this delay into account, the predictive neural
signals preceded the conscious motor decision by up to 10 seconds. The earliest neural signals
appeared in the frontopolar cortex, which is involved in complex, higher order behaviors, and
subsequently moved into the parietal cortex, which are different areas from the somatosensory
cortex where Libet detected neural signals. The brain activities that reflected which button would
be pressed occurred in the frontopolar cortex, but the activities that reflect when the button
would be pressed occurred in the somatosensory cortex 5 seconds before movement. The
researchers suggest that this represents the dissociation between brain regions shaping the
specific outcome of the motor decision and brain regions determining the timing of a motor
decision. The researchers were able to predict the outcome of the participants’ choices, which
button would be pressed, from the preceding neuronal activities up to seven seconds before
conscious decisions were made with a statistically significant 60% accuracy rate. This imperfect
prediction could be due to limitations of the experimental setup and instrument precision (Soon
et al., 2008).

NEUROSCIENCE OF VOLITION 150

While it seems remarkable that reliable neural predictions of decisions are possible
seconds before subjects become aware of their decisions, the experimental design might not be
very successful in challenging the common intuition of free will. Objections to this study could
be similar to the objections raised to Libet’s experiment. For example, one might object that this
experiment does not reflect the mental dynamics of the decision-making processes of more
complicated choices. It can be challenging to make generalizations about complex decisions that
we execute on a daily basis through neural prediction of simple decisions. Additionally, the 60%
prediction accuracy is relatively low. While the authors attributed this low accuracy to
methodological limitations and claimed that it might be significantly improved in future
experiments, it is possible that the predictions were based on the subconscious decision biases in
the brain that participants might override and change their decisions at a later moment. The
relatively long decision interval has been also criticized since participants were only allowed to
make a decision about every 14 seconds (Mele et al., 2019). This long interval might suggest that
participants intend to make a certain decision a few seconds before they make their final choice.
Sometimes they follow their intention, making it possible to predict their decision through the
neural correlates, but they still have the freedom to execute a different action, which justifies the
relatively low accuracy (Mele et al., 2019). The results of this experiment might show that our
decisions are biased by neural activities even before we experience conscious intention, but it is
still very challenging to conclude that our decisions are fully determined seconds before we
become consciously aware of them. I think that performing similar experiments with larger
numbers of subjects would provide a better assessment of the significance of the predication
accuracy. It might also be helpful to design experiments for predicting more complex moral
choices that participants might make in hypothetical scenarios.