static-content.springer.com10.1007... · web viewparticipants filled out the fwd scale after...

Online Table

Reference Method Manipulation Scales Sample Characteristic

Results Factors Categorization

1. Rigoni, Kuhn, Sartori & Brass (2011)

Design: Experimental (Random Assignment)

Manipulation/Conditions:

1) no-FW group. Had to read a deterministic passage on consciousness from The Astonishing Hypothesis by Crick (1994)

2) Control group. Had to read a neutral passage on consciousness from The Astonishing Hypothesis by Crick (1994)

Task: Variant of the Libet experiment (120 trials). Scales administered post-task.

-Read a passage -General subscale of FAD

-Personal subscale of FAD

-Other

-30 participants

-20 females; 10 males

-Age range = 18-24 years

-All right-handed

Effect of sample characteristics on result? No analyses conducted

Weakening BFW affects brain processes linked to motor preparation.

Effect sizes?

Larger readiness potential (RP; slow negative-going wave that reflects programming and preparation of movement) amplitude for control groups Ƞ2p=.086 (medium)

Lower amplitude of early RP for no-FW group Ƞ2

p=.136 (large)

Slow negative increase in RP prior to motor response Ƞ2

p=.639 (large)

Non-uniform increase in RP across scalp Ƞ2p=.229 (large)

-Physiology

-Cognition

-Volition

What is influenced by BFW/DT

2. Rigoni, Design: Experimental

-Read a passage -General subscale of

-40 participants Dismissing BFW reduces self-control

-Physiology What is

1

Kuhn, Gaudino, Sartori & Brass (2012)

(Random Assignment)


1) no-FW group. Had to read deterministic statements.

2) Control group. Had to read neutral statements.

Task: Marble task for intentional inhibition by Kuhn et al. (2009) (3 conditions, 288 trials total). Scales were administered post-task.

FAD

-Personal subscale of FAD

-PANAS

-Others


-Age range = 20-21 years

-All right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal vision

Effect? No analyses conducted

(intentional/voluntary inhibition) and perceived self-control.

Effect sizes?

Reaction Times differed based on trial type Ƞ2p=.878 (large)

-Cognition influenced by BFW/DT

3. Lynn, Van Dessel & Brass (2013)


Manipulation/Conditions: 1) anti-FW group. Had to read anti-FW statements during intertrial intervals.

2) Control group. Had to read neutral

-Read a passage - FAD-PLUS

- PANAS

-48 participants


-All with normal or corrected-to-normal vision


Disbelief in FW significantly reduces intentional engagement in self-regulatory behaviors (i.e. adapting behaviors to contextual needs)

Effect sizes?

Anti-FW group slower to react when given the choice d=0.84 (large), but not on directed trials

-Physiology

-Volition


2

statements during intertrial intervals Task: 120 trials of thermal pain stimulation. Participants had to, or could choose to, inhibit or withstand the pain, depending on the type of shape (triangle, square, circle) presented to them. Scales administered pre and post-task.

d=0.27 (small)

Control group inhibited less often than anti-FW group following directed action trials d=0.99 (large)

Anti-FW group tended to inhibit more often after an action trial, than an inhibition trial d=0.63 (medium). This was not the case for control group d=0.03 (small)

4. Vohs & Schooler (2008)

Experiment 1


Manipulation/Conditions: 1) anti-FW group. Had to read a deterministic passage from The Astonishing Hypothesis by Crick (1994)

2) Control group. Had to read a neutral passage on


- PANAS

Experiment 1:

-30 participants

-13 females; 17 males-All undergraduate


Experiment 2:

-122 participants

-46 females; 75 males; 1 not reported

-Data from 3

In both experiments, it was demonstrated that weakening BFW increases cheating behavior.

Effect sizes?

Experiment 1

No effect sizes reported

Experiment 2


-Social What is influenced by BFW/DT

3

consciousness from The Astonishing Hypothesis by Crick (1994)

Task:

They were asked to complete mental mathematics on a computer, and had to choose between cheating or not. Scales were administered pre-task.Experiment 2


Manipulation/Conditions: Cheating conditions: 1) FW group. Had to read and think about 15 statements pro-FW. 2) no-FW group. Had to read and think about 15 statements anti-FW 3) Neutral group. Had to read and think

participants unusable

-All undergraduate


4

about 15 neutral statements. Non-Cheating conditions: 1) Baseline experimenter-scored group. No material to read. 2) Determinism experimenter-scored group. Had to read and think about 15 deterministic statements.

Task: Cheating condition: Had to complete GRE test samples. They were allowed to self-score, and pay themselves for each correct answer. Scales were administered pre-task. Non-cheating condition: Experimenters scored the tests and paid the participants.

5. Rigoni, Wilquin, Brass & Burle (2013)


Manipulation/Conditions: 1) no-

-Read a passage -Scientific Determinism subscale of FAD

-Fatalistic determinism

-44 participants


-All students

Effect? No

Disbelief in FW impairs post-error slowing (i.e. cognitive reactions to errors). Specifically, weakening BFW reduces the likelihood of

-Cognition

-Social


5

FW group. Had to read a deterministic passage from The Astonishing Hypothesis by Crick (1994)

2) Control group. Had to read a neutral passage from The Astonishing Hypothesis by Crick (1994)

Task: They completed 1h15min of the Simon task (4 blocks; 96 trials/block). Scales were administered pre- and post-task.

subscale of FAD

analyses conducted

error monitoring.

Effect sizes?

No-FW group had a reduced post-error slowing Ƞ2

p=.12 (large)

No-FW group had reduced belief in intentional control Ƞ2p=.11 (large)

Slower reaction times after errors than after correct trials Ƞ2

p=.48 (large)

All participants reported less negative emotions post-manipulation Ƞ2p=.34 (large)

6. Rigoni, Pourtois & Brass (2015)



1) no-FW group. Had to read a deterministic passage from The Astonishing


- PANAS

-33 participants


-Mean age = 23.14 (SD = 3.95)

Effect?

No analyses were conducted

Disbelief in FW alters early-stage error monitoring. Specifically, weakening BFW affects error monitoring at the level of automatic action monitoring processes.

Effect sizes?

-Cognition What is influenced by BFW/DT

6

Hypothesis by Crick (1994)

2) Control group. Had to read a neutral passage from The Astonishing Hypothesis by Crick (1994)

Task: Baseline and post-manipulation completion of a session of 360 trials of the go/no-go task while EEG was recorded. All scales were administered post-task.

Reaction times were slower for slow hits than for fast hits and errors Ƞ2p=.89 (large)

There was an effect of session on the different types of trials Ƞ2

p=.11 (large)

Slower reaction times following errors Ƞ2

p=.58 (large)

Participants were faster post-manipulation Ƞ2p=.46 (large)

Error-related negativity decreased uniformly in post-manipulation Ƞ2p=.12 (large),

particularly for the no-FW group Ƞ2

p=.17 (large)

Effect of site for change in early error positivity Ƞ2

p=.35 (large)

Groups differed on their PANAS scores Ƞ2

p=.14 (large)

7. Krueger, Hoffman,

Design: Quasi-experimental


- IRI

-26 participants

-13 females; 13

High BFW is linked to a higher likelihood of

-Social

-

What is influenced by

7

Walter & Grafman (2014)

Manipulation/Conditions: 1) Libertarian group (high BFW)

2) Determinist group (low BFW).

Task: Testing occurred in an fMRI scanner. In the experimental condition, participants had to read a vignette featuring a criminal offense and estimate punishment. In the control condition, participants had to estimate the number of syllables in each vignette. Scales were administered pre-task, allowing for assignment of participants to groups.

-SAM

-TAS-20

males

-Age range = 20.3-31.7

-All right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal vision

Effect?

No analyses conducted

punishing severely, in low affective cases. Also, high BFW is linked to significantly more activation in the right temporo-parietal junction.

Effect sizes?


Neurobiology BFW/DT

8. Baumeister, Masicampo & DeWall (2009)

Experiment 1


-Read a passage - FAD

- BMIS

-PANAS

Experiment 1:

-70 participants


Disbelief in FW reduces the likelihood of prosocial behaviors (e.g., decreased helping; increased aggression). In contrast, high BFW

-Social What is influenced by BFW/DT

8

Manipulations/Conditions: 1) FW group had to internalize BFW-related statements.

2) no-FW group had to internalize statements related to disbelief in FW.

3) Control group had to internalize neutral statements.

Task: Participants read 6 scenarios where they would have the opportunity to help others. They had to indicate the likelihood they would do so. Scales were administered pre-task.

Experiment 2


Manipulation/Conditions: All participants had their disbelief in FW measured using a

-6 results excluded

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-52 participants

-31 females; 20 males; 1 not reported

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 3:

-56 participants


-All undergraduate

-7 participants excluded

Effect?

No analyses were

increases the likelihood of helping.

Effect sizes?

Experiment 1, no effect sizes reported



9

short version of the FAD scale.

Task: Participants had to listen to a radio broadcast where a woman named Katie was portrayed as vulnerable and in need of help following a car accident. Participants were then asked how many hours they would be willing to help (0-9). Scales were administered pre-task.

Experiment 3


Manipulation/Conditions: 1) FW group had to internalize BFW-related statements.

2) no-FW group had to internalize statements related to

conducted

10

disbelief in FW.

3) Control group had to internalize neutral statements.

Task: Participants were placed in groups of 4-6 and asked to socialize. After asserting their partner-preference, they were randomly assigned to groups based on acceptance/rejection from other participants. After going through belief manipulation, they were asked to prepare food for their partner, and aggressive behaviors were measured through milligrams of hot salsa used.

9. Lynn, Muhle-Karbe, Aarts & Brass (2014)


Manipulation/Conditions: All


- PANAS-X

-LOC

-52 participants


-Age range = 18-24

-All students

Weakening BFW significantly reduces intentional binding, but not explicit agency ratings. Specifically, reduced BFW decreases the likelihood to

-Cognition

-Affect


11

participants completed, in a counterbalanced order, 1) Control session. Read a passage of Francis Crick’s “The General Nature of Consciousness” (1995) and 2) anti-FW session. Read a passage of Francis Crick’s “A Postscript on Free Will” (1995).

Task: They completed both the intentional binding task and the Sato task (Counterbalanced). Scales were administered post-task.

Effect?


implicitly feel in control of one’s actions.

Effect sizes?

When participants went through the anti-FW session, they reported stronger determinist beliefs d=0.211 (small)

Stronger BFW were expressed following control sessions d=2.366 (large)

Weakening BFW diminishes sense of agency d=0.248 (small)

Intentional binding significantly decreased post anti-FW session, in responder participants d=0.282 (small)

Intentional binding significantly increases post anti-FW session, in reactant participants d=0.093 (small)

10. Zhao, Liu, Zhang, Shi

Experiment 1 -Read a passage - FAD-PLUS Experiment 1: All three experiments -Cognition Correlates of

12

& Huang (2014)

Design: Correlational

Manipulation/Condition: N/A

Task: Participants were asked to fill questionnaires with elements taken from the FAD-PLUS and Bogardus Social Distance Scale.

Experiment 2


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants went through a priming task for belief or disbelief in FW where they had to 1) Summarize in their own words 6 statements taken from the FAD-Plus scale and 2) recall their own experiences related to these statements.

-Summarize a passage

- Bogardus Social Distance scale

- Pro-Black Attitudes measure

-70 participants


-Mean age = 27.7

-All self-identified as Han Chinese

Experiment 2:

-34 participants


-All self-identified as Han Chinese

-All students

Experiment 3:

-63 participants


-Age range: 17-67; Mean age = 39.6 (SD = 15.0)

-Originated from South Africa (30.3%), Britain (24.2%), United States (9.1%), and

demonstrated that increased BFW correlates with less prejudices, or more pro-other race attitudes.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:

Greater Han Chinese BFW would significantly predict less prejudice against Tibetan Chinese: R2= 0.10. (small)

Experiment 2:

Warmer temperaturestowards Uyghur Chinesein BFW condition d= 0.86 (large).

Experiment 3:

Greater pro-black attitude in BFW condition d= 0.82 (large).

-Social BFW/DT


13

Task: They were instructed to indicate their attitudes towards Uyghur Chinese using a feeling thermometer based on that of Dasgupta and Greenwald (2001).

Experiment 3:


Manipulation/Condition: Participants were instructed to read a passage that was fabricated to be a paragraph from Science Magazine. Content varied based on the priming condition (belief/disbelief in FW).

Task: Participants had to fill the Pro-Black Attitude Measure in order to

other European countries (36.4%)

-All reported being White

Effect?


14

have their prejudice against black people verified.

11. Mackenzie, Vohs & Baumeister (2014)

Experiment 1a:

Design: Correlational Manipulation/Conditions: N/A

Task: Participants were handed the Gratitude Questionnaire and the FAD-PLUS to fill online.

Experiment 1b: Design: Correlational Manipulation/Conditions: N/A

Task: Participants were handed the Gratitude Questionnaire and the FAD-PLUS to fill online, 1.5 years after experiment 1a.

Experiment 2:

Design: Experimental (Random

-Read a passage

-Summarize a passage

-FAD-PLUS

- Gratitude questionnaire

-PANAS

-Other

Experiment 1a:

-91 participants


-Mean age = 31.8; SD = 13.6

Experiment 1b:

-59 participants


-Mean age = 36.7; SD = 12.9

Experiment 2:

-50 participants


-Mean age = 19.6; SD = 1.14

-All undergraduate

Experiment 3:

All four experiments show that reducing BFW contributes to feeling less grateful about recalled events, events that presently occur or fictional events where one should feel grateful. Thus, BFW seems to influence how one feels about others.

Effect size?

Experiment 1a: BFW is linked to feeling grateful for life outcomes d= 2.15 (large)

Experiment 1b: BFW is linked to feeling grateful for life outcomes d= 3.02 (large)

Experiment 2:

Participants who rewrote anti-FW sentences would report feeling less grateful than those in the pro-FW and neutral conditions: first

-Cognition

-Social

-Affect

Correlates of BFW/DT


15

Assignment)

Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: pro-FW, anti-FW or control. Each group had to read and rewrite sentences relevant to their condition

Task: They were asked to write three prior life events where they felt grateful and rate how grateful they were.

Experiment 3:


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were assigned to either read a pro-FW or anti-FW essay and were asked to summarize it. All

-42 participants


-Mean age = 19.7; SD = 2.81

-All undergraduate

Experiment 4:

-64 participants


-Mean age = 37.7; SD = 13.3

Effect?

No analyses were conducted (all experiments).

recalled event η2 = .12 (medium); second event measure η2 = .08 (small); and disappeared entirely on the third measure.

For the first event, anti-FW participants were significantly less grateful than pro-free will participants d = .75 (medium).

Participants in the anti-FW condition also reported significantly less gratitude than those in the neutral control condition d =.71 (medium).

Experiment 3:

Participants in the anti-FW condition reported feeling significantly less grateful than those in the pro-FW essay condition: d = .64 (medium).

Participants in the anti-FW essay condition perceived the benefactor

16

participants then filled the PANAS questionnaire.

Task: Participants were then faced with a situation where they were asked to complete a task and then told by the experimenter that they did not need to do it anymore because someone else would. Finally, participants were told that the experiment was about person perception and were asked different questions.

Experiment 4:


Manipulation/Condition: Same as in experiment 3

Task: Participants then had to read a vignette where they

as being less sincerely motivated to help them than those in the pro-FW essay condition: d = .76 (medium).

Experiment 4:

Participants in the anti-FW condition reported feeling less grateful than those in the pro-FW condition: d = .57 (medium).

Participants in the anti-FW group perceived the benefactor as having less FW than those in the pro-FW group: d = .60 (medium).

Participants in the anti- FW condition perceived the benefactor as being less sincerely motivated than participants in the pro-FW condition: d = .70 (medium).

17

needed to imagine themselves helped and their feeling of gratitude were then measured. Their perception of the value of help and the motivational sincerity of the character, as well as its FW, were measured.

12. Mogi (2014)

Design: Correlational Manipulation/conditions: N/A

Task: Participants filled in an online survey about FW, paranormal beliefs and paranormal knowledge.

-N/A -Other -2076 subjects

-1087 females; 978 males; 11 other gender

-Mean age= 37.5

Effect?


There were correlations between practical and theoretical BFW and paranormal beliefs. Specifically, high BFW correlated significantly with high beliefs in paranormal events.

Effect size?


-Cognition Correlates of BFW/DT

13. Alquist, Ainsworth, & Baumeister (2013)

Experiment 1:


Task: Participants filled out the

-Read and rewrite a passage

-FAD-PLUS

-Conformity scale

Experiment 1:

-39 participants


-Mean age= 37.8

All three experiments demonstrated that disbelief in FW encourages conformity.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:

-Social Correlates of BFW/DT


18

Conformity scale, the FAD-Plus and some demographic questions online.

Experiment 2:


Manipulation/condition: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: pro-FW, anti-FW or control. Each group had to read and rewrite sentences relevant to their condition.

Task: They were then asked to rate paintings on a scale from 1 to 9, and were provided with a package that contained the already rated paintings.

Experiment 3:

Design:

Effect?

No analyses were conducted.

Experiment 2:

-54 participants

-Mean age= 18.8

-All students

Effect?


Experiment 3:

-73 participants


-All undergraduate students

Effect?


No effect sizes reported.

Experiment 2:


Experiment 3:

Significant difference among conditions on the extent to which participants indicated that the sentences they read cast doubt on their BFW: η2=.13 (medium).

19

Experimental (Random Assignment)

Manipulation/conditions: Participants were assigned to either the anti-FW, pro-FW, control condition, or a meaning-threat control condition. Task: They were asked to read sentences relevant to their condition, think about them and rewrite them. Then, all participants completed the Conformity measure, where they were asked to generate new product names to a range of different objects.

14. Monroe, Dillon & Malle (2014)

Experiment 1:


Manipulation/

-Read a passage -Other Experiment 1:

-197 participants

-60% females; 40% males

-76% white

All three experiments demonstrated that, across a variety of agents, capacities of choice, intentionality and sole cause of one’s actions constitute FW. Also, manipulation of

-Cognition

-Intentionality

-Choice

What influences concept of FW

20

conditions: Participants were assigned to read either of the descriptions of the following agents: a normal human, an akratic human (can’t use thought to control actions), a cyborg (human brain in robot body), AI in human body or an advanced robot. Task: They then had to judge how much blame their respective agent deserved on 7 norm-violating actions. Lastly, they had to evaluate their agents’ capacities.

Follow-up study: “sole cause of one’s action” as a capacity needed to be clarified. 46 participants were asked to define what that characteristic meant after answering the

-Mean age= 35.5

-26% finishing only high-school; 61% attained a 2- or 4-year college degree; and 12% attained a graduate degree.

-Political attitudes: M= 5.9, SD= 1.82, on a 1 (extremely conservative) to 9 (extremely liberal) scale

-Religiousness: M= 1.6 (SD= 1.40) on a 0–4 scale (0 = not at all religious;4 = very religious)

Follow-up study:

-46 participants

-43% female; 57% male

-Mean age = 35.7 (SD = 13.4

- 87% White

-Education: 26.1% reported finishing

intentionality, choice and “sole” strongly predicted FW and blame attribution.

Experiment 1:

For the normal human, choice and intentionality accounted for FW ascription R2= .87 (large)

For the akratic human, choice and intentionality also accounted for FW ascription R2= .44 (medium)

For the cyborg, choice, intentionality and partially soul, accounted for FW ascription R2= .62 (large)

For the AI in a human body, intentionality accounted for FW ascription R2= .26 (small)

For the advanced robot, intentionality and sole

21

question using the term.

Experiment 2:


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were assigned to one of the four following conditions: normal human (choice present/soul present), cyborg (choice present/ soul absent), akratic human (choice absent/ soul present) and robot (choice absent/soul absent).

Task: Norm violation judgment and ratings of agents’ capacities were same as in experiment 1. Participants’ belief in a soul was also assessed.

high school as their highest level of education; 19.6% attained a 2-year degree; 45.7% attained a 4-year degree, and 6.5% attained a Master’s degree or higher. --Political attitudes: M = 5.76 (SD= 1.72) on a 1 (extremely conservative) to 9 (extremely liberal) scale

-Religiousness: M = 1.10 (SD= 1.21) on a 0–4 scale (0 = not at all religious;4 = very religious)

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-124 participants

-65% female; 35%

cause accounted for FW ascription R2= .50 (large)

The agent manipulation had a substantial impact on people’s blame judgments: η2 = .36. (medium)

Follow-up study


Experiment 2:

Altogether, manipulations (choice vs soul), psychological capacities and the combination of soul ascriptions and manipulations accounted for most of the variance in FW ascriptions R2= .79 (large)

22

male

-82% White

-Mean age = 28.2 (SD = 9.45)

-Political attitudes: M = 3.1 (SD = 1.54) on a 1 (extremely conservative) to 9 (extremely liberal) scale

-Religiousness: M = 2.10 (SD = 1.27) on a 0–4 scale (0 = not at all religious;4 = very religious)

Effect?

Religiousness and belief in souls were tested, but neither made any contributions: r2 < .01. (small)

In regards to predicting blame judgments, manipulations (choice vs soul), psychological capacities and the combination of soul ascriptions and manipulations accounted for most of the variance R2= .73 (large)

15. Stillman, Baumeister, Vohs, Lambert, Fincham, &

Experiment 1:


Manipulation/

N/A -FAD

-LOC

-Big Five

Experiment 1:

-143 participants


Both experiments demonstrate that stronger BFW predicts better job performance.

-Social Correlates of BFW/DT

23

Brewer (2010)

Conditions: N/A

Task: Participants filled out the following measures: FW subscale of the Free Will and Determinism Scale, the Big Five, the Locus of Control Scale and an 8-item measure of expected career performance.

Experiment 2:


Task: Participants filled the following questionnaires: the Free Will and Determinism Scale, the Vitality Scale, the Protestant Ethic Scale and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Furthermore, 5 dimensions of workplace performance were assessed (overall job

-Vitality scale

-Protestant Ethic scale

-Satisfaction with Life scale

-Other

-Mean age = 20; SD = 1.58

-75% White; 13% Black; 12% Other or multiple race; also 12% reported Hispanic ethnicity

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-65 participants

-9 females; 53 males; 3 unreported

-Age range: 18-65; M = 37.93 (SD = 11.00)

-79% Black; 6% White; 3% Asian; and 12% not reported (6% identified ethnicity as Hispanic)

Effect size?

Experiment 1:

Adding BFW to the regression model significantly improved it ΔR2= .05 (small), while adding locus of control did not ΔR2= .009 (small)

Experiment 2:

The only significant predictor to emerge in relation to job performance was BFW: R2 = .13. (small)

It was the only variable to significantly improve the model: ΔR2 =.12 (small)

24

performance). Effect?


16. Ent & Baumeister (2014)

Experiment 1:


Manipulation/Conditions: 23 participants with panic disorder, 16 with epilepsy; and 35 control

Task: Participants were administered the Free Will and Determinism Scale. Depending on their condition, they were also asked to fill out either the Epilepsy and Personal Beliefs Scale or the Panic Disorder and Personal Belief Scale.

Experiment 2:


-N/A -Epilepsy and Personal Belief

-Panic Disorder and Personal Belief

-Personal Will subscale of FAD

Experiment 1:

-74 participants


-23 with panic disorder (17 females); 16 with epilepsy (6 females); and 35 control (21 females)

-Mean age = 32.71

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-81 participants


-Age range = 18 to 70; M = 29.79

All three experiments demonstrated that BFW is negatively correlated with the experiencing of bodily needs.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:

No effect size reported.

Experiment 2:


Experiment 3:


-Physiology

-Mental/physical disorder


What influences BFW/DT

25

Manipulation/Conditions: N/A

Task: Participants filled out the following questionnaires: Personal Will Subscale of the Free Will and Determinism Scale as well as an 11-point scale about the degree to which they were currently experiencing physical needs (hunger, need to urinate, etc.).

Experiment 3: Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: 35 Dieters and 77 non-dieters (all self-identified) Task: Participants filled the following questionnaires: a scale about their current hunger, the Personal Will Subscale of the Free Will and

Effect?


Experiment 3:

-112 participants

-72 females, 40 males

-Age range =18 to 72; M = 38.

-35 dieters and 77 non-dieters.

Effect?


26

Determinism Scale, their current dieting status as well as a scale on their attempt to restrict their food intake.

17. Shariff, Green, Karremans, Luguri, Clark, Schooler, Baumeister & Vohs (2014)

Experiment 1:


Task: Participants completed the FW subscale of the FAD-PLUS and also indicated on two Likert scales the importance of retributivism and consequentialism in determining criminal punishment.

Experiment 2:


Manipulation/conditions: Participants had to

-Passages to read - FAD-PLUS

-PANAS

-Other

Experiment 1:

-244 participants


-Mean age = 36.81

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-46 participants


-Mean age = 20.44

-All students

Effect?


All four experiments demonstrated that higher BFW is linked to more severe criminal judgments and retributive attitudes.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:

Participants who read the anti-FW passage recommended significantly lighter prison sentences than participants who read the neutral passage: d = 0.82 (large).

Experiment 3:

Participants who read the neuroscience articles recommended significantly shorter

-Cognition

-Social



27

read passages relevant to their group (anti-FW or neutral).

Task: They had to read fictional vignettes vouching for retributive punishment of a criminal. Participants had to choose among seven punishments going from no imprisonment to life imprisonment without chance of parole.

Experiment 3:


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were assigned to read scientific passages relevant to their group (anti-FW and control conditions).

Task: Same task as

Experiment 3:

-88 participants


-Mean age = 20.81


Effect?


Experiment 4:

-68 participants


-Mean age = 20.44

Effect?


prison sentences than did participants who read the other science articles: d = 0.45 (small).

Experiment 4:

Prison-sentence recommendations decreased from the start to the end of the neuroscience class: d =

0.44 (small).

There was a significant difference between classes of the correlation between self-reported knowledge of the brain and sentencing recommendation (Steiger’s Z = 2.00)]

28

experiment 2, but they also rated the criminal’s blameworthiness. Finally, all participants filled out the FAD-PLUS and the PANAS.

Experiment 4:


Manipulation/Conditions: Cognitive neuroscience students and geography students Task: Participants had to complete, at the beginning of the semester, a shorter version of experiment 2’s punishment scenario and answered questions about their perceived knowledge of the brain. At the end of the semester, they completed the same measures.

29

18. Viney, Waldman & Barchilon (1982)


Task: Participants filled out the FWD scale and answered questions about attitude towards crime and punishment.

N/A -FAD

-Other

-122 participants

-All students

Effect?


Higher BFW correlates with a lesser punitive attitude.

Effect size?


-Cognition

-Social


19. Nahmias, Shepard & Reuter (2014)

Experiment 1:


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were randomly assigned to read one of two scenarios where neuroscientists could predict a person’s behavior by analyzing his/her brain activity. In one scenario, they could also manipulate his/her behavior, while in the other

-Read a scenario -Other Experiment 1:

-278 participants


-Mean age = 21.30 (SD = 4.90)

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-213 participants


-Mean age = 22.79

FW attributions remain highest in cases where behavior of a character is not manipulated.

Effect size

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:


Experiment 3:


-Volition What influences BFW/DT or concept of FW

30

they could not.

Task: Participants answered questions about FW, responsibility and bypassing (i.e. an outside process being responsible for one’s behavior).

Experiment 2:


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants went through the same procedure as in experiment 1, except that the texts emphasized physicalism (i.e. reducing FW to purely physical phenomena).

Task: Same as experiment 1.

Experiment 3: Design:

(SD = 6.90)

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 3:

-196 participants


-Mean age = 21.0 (SD = 7.61)

Effect?


31


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were assigned to either of the scenarios presented in previous experiments, except that this time, mind readers were used instead of neuroscientists. The emphasis was much less physicalist and much more focused on the mind and/or soul.

Task: Same as in experiments 1 and 2.

20. Alquist, Ainsworth, Baumeister, Daly & Stillman (2015)

Experiment 1:


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were assigned to either the FW, anti-FW or

-Read and rewrite a passage

-FAD-PLUS

-BMIS

-Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale

-Other

Experiment 1:

-83 participants, divided in groups of 10 to 20

-All students

Effect?


Higher BFW is related to higher tendency for counterfactual thinking (i.e. the assumption the outcome of a situation might have differed if one’s behavior had been different).

Effect sizes?

-Cognition What is influenced by BFW/DT

Correlates of FW/BFW/DT

32

control condition where they had to read and rewrite passages relevant to their groups.

Task: Participants completed the BMIS and a counterfactual measure (describe a situation where you hurt someone, and think “if only” what could have changed).

Experiment 2:


Manipulation/conditions: Participants were assigned to the same groups as in experiment 1

Task: Participants had to read one of two situations (counterfactual scenario) involving them and a fictional character that would

Experiment 2:

-125 participants


-Mean age = 19.9

-Ethnicity: 25 Hispanic/Latino, 92 non-Hispanic/Latino, 7 unknown/choose not to report

-Race: 2 Asian, 19 Black or African American, 94 White, 7 more than 1 race, 1 unknown/do not wish to report, 2 other

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 3:

-112 participants


Experiment 1:

Significant variation among conditions in the number of counterfactuals participants generated: η2 = .08 (small).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals than participants in the anti– FW condition: η2 = .06 (small); d = .60 (medium).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals than participants in the control condition: η2 = .06 (small), d = .56 (medium).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more upward counterfactuals than participants in the control condition: η2 = .07 (small); d = .62 (medium).

33

end either positively or negatively. They then had to fill in the counterfactual measure and the BMIS.

Experiment 3: Design: Correlational


Task: Participants filled out the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the FAD-PLUS. They then filled out the same counterfactual measure as in experiment 1.

Experiment 4:



Task: Participants were given the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the FAD+. As in

-Mean age = 18.85

-Ethnicity: 20 Hispanic/Latino, 89 non-Hispanic/Latino, 3 unknown/choose not to report

-Race: 3 Asian, 6 Black or African American, 92 White, 4 more than 1 race, 2 unknown/do not wish to report, 5 other

Effect?


Experiment 4:

-50 participants


-Mean age = 29.27

-Ethnicity: 11 Hispanic/Latino, 37 Not Hispanic/Latino, 2 no response

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more upward counterfactuals than participants in the anti– FW condition: η2 = .07 (small); d = .58 (medium).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals in which a thing or action was added to the situation than participants in the control condition: η2 = .11 (small), d = .82 (large).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals in which a thing or action was added to the situation than participants in anti– FW condition: η2 = .06 (small), d = .56 (medium).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals about

34

experiment 1, participants went through the counterfactual measure and also had to indicate their agreement with 4 different counterfactual statements.

-Race: 6 American Indian/Alaskan Native, 29 Asian, 11 White, 1 more than 1 race, 3 unknown/do not wish to report

Effect?


themselves than participants in the control condition: η2 = .11 (small), d = .78 (medium).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals about themselves than participants in the anti– FW condition: η2 = .06 (small), d = .58 (medium).

Experiment 2:

Significant effect of condition on the number of counterfactuals participants generated: η2 = .05 (small).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals than participants in the anti– FW condition: η2 = .04 (small), d = .44 (small).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals than

35

participants in the neutral control condition: η2 = .04 (medium), d = .52 (medium).

Main effect of FW condition on facilitating counterfactuals for both successes and failures: η2 = .05 (small).

Participants in FW condition generated more additive counterfactuals than participants in the anti– FW belief η2 = .04 (small), d = .42 (small).

Participants in the FW condition generated more upward counterfactuals than participants in the control condition: η2 = .03 (small), d = .37 (small).

Participants in the FW condition generated more counterfactuals about themselves than participants in the anti– FW condition: η2 = .03

36

(small), d = .38 (small).

Participants in the FW condition generated significantly more counterfactuals about the fictional character than participants in the control condition: η2 = .04 (small), d = .51(medium).

Experiment 3:


Experiment 4:


21. Shepherd (2012)

Experiment 1:


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants read one of eight scenarios that varied along three dimensions: Abstract vs. Concrete;

-Read a scenario N/A Experiment 1:

-193 participants


-All undergraduates

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-179 participants

Consciousness (in this case, a character making a conscious decision) is associated with FW attribution, even in deterministic scenarios.

Effect sizes?

Experiment 1:

Main effect for Consciousness for the statements that said that a person’s decisions will be up to them: ηp

2 = .216

-Volition

-Intentionality

-Ideas of morality/justice

What influences BFW/DT or concept of FW

37

Mechanistic vs. Psychological; Conscious vs. Unconscious

Task: Participants had to judge if the agent presented in the scenario acted freely or not.

Experiment 2:


Manipulation/Conditions: Same as in experiment 1 with slight changes in statements

Task: Participants went through the same procedures as in experiment 1, except that 4 questions were asked based on Want, Control, Decision and Belief.

Experiment 3:

Design:


Effect?


Experiment 3:

-104 participants

-41 females; 63 male

Effect?


(large).

Main effect for Mechanism for the statements that said that a person’s decisions will be up to them: ηp

2 = .045 (medium).

Main effect for Consciousness for the statements that said that their decisions will be made of their own FW: ηp

2 = .157 (large).

Main effect for Mechanism for the statements that said that their decisions will be made of their own FW: ηp

2 = .043 (medium).

Significant main effect for Consciousness for the statements that said that they should be held morally responsible for their decisions: ηp

2 = .182 (large).

Main effect for Mechanism for the statements that said that they should be held morally responsible for

38


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants read one of two scenarios that varied along two dimensions: Determinism (Determinism vs. Indeterminism) and Consciousness: (Conscious vs. Unconscious)

Task: Participants were asked to rate their agreement on statements regarding the scenarios.

their decisions: ηp2

= .041 (medium).

Responses to the actually true statement significantly predicted FW responses: R2 = .31. (medium)

Experiment 2:

Main effect for Consciousness for the statements that said that a person’s decisions will be up to them: ηp

2 = .144 (large).

Main effect for Abstraction for the statements that said that a person’s decisions will be up to them: ηp

2 = .028 (small).

Main effect for Consciousness for the statements that said that their decisions will be made of their own FW: ηp

2 = .152 (large).

Main effect for Abstraction for the statements that said that their decisions will be

39

made of their own FW: ηp

2 = .024 (small).

Main effect for Consciousness for the statements that said that they should be held morally responsible for their decisions: ηp

2 = .136 (medium).

Main effect for Consciousness on the bypassing composite score: ηp

2 = .08 (medium).

Actually true responses explained a significant proportion of variance in bypassing score: R2 = .078 (small)

Experiment 3:

Main effect for Consciousness on the FW composite score: ηp

2

= .114 (medium).

Main effect for Determinism on the free will composite score: ηp

2

= .055 (small).

Main effect for Consciousness on the

40

bypassing composite score: ηp

2 = .144 (large).

Actually true responses explained a significant proportion of variance in FW scores, R2 = .16 (small)

Main effect for Consciousness for the statement ‘If the scientists are right, Mark has the ability to decide not to cheat on his taxes.’: ηp

2 = .105 (medium).

Main effect for Determinism for the statement ‘If the scientists are right, Mark has the ability to decide not to cheat on his taxes : ηp

2 = .220 (large).

22. Clark, Ditto, Shariff, Luguri, Knobe, & Baumeister (2014)

Experiment 1:


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were

-Passage to read

-Articles to read

-FAD-PLUS

-Social Desirability scale

-Other

Experiment 1:

-171 participants


-Mean age = 34.48

Effect?

Experiments 1 to 4 demonstrated that people confronted to immoral situations tend to report higher BFW and tend to punish more severely. Experiment 5 demonstrated that countries with higher


-Criminality



41

randomly assigned to read one two articles (control vs immoral condition).

Task: Participants had to fill out the Social Desirability scale (to avoid suspicion) and the FAD-PLUS.

Experiment 2: Design: Experimental (Random Assignment)

Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were randomly assigned to read one two articles (control vs immoral condition).

Task: Participants had to rate the FW of the perpetrator, to what degree he should be punished and fill out the FAD-PLUS.

Experiment 3:


Experiment 2:

-95 participants


-Mean age = 20.13

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 3:

-277 participants

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 4:

-213 participants


-Mage age = 30.80 years

crime rates also report the highest BFW.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:

Participants who read about the corrupt judge reported significantly higher levels of BFW than those who read about the job search: d = 0.43 (small).

Experiment 2:

Participants believed significantly more in FW after reading about the robber than the aluminum can forager: d = 0.47 (small).

Experiment 3:

Participants in the unpunished cheater

condition and the punished cheater condition believed significantly more in FW than participants in the control condition: d = 0.59 (medium); and d


42


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants received an email relevant to their condition (unpunished cheater, punished cheater and control)

Task: All participants had to fill in the FAD-PLUS and answer two questions about punishment.


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants had to read vignettes relevant to their condition (neutral and immoral)

Task: All

Effect?


Experiment 5:

-Free will data from the 1981–1984, 1990–1993, 1994–1999, 1999–2004, and 2005–2007 waves of the World Values Survey (World Values Survey Association, 2009) using Item a173: “Some people feel they have completely free choice and control over their lives, while other people feel that what they do has no real effect on what happens to them. Please use this scale where 1 means “none at all” and 10 means “a great deal” to indicate how much freedom of choice

= 0.47 (small).

Experiment 4:

Significant effect of condition with all participants: d = 0.37 (small).

Experiment 5:


43

participants were given an anti-FW passage to read and remember and asked to fill out a questionnaire about their feelings towards it.

Experiment 5:


Task: Researchers gathered data on country crime rates and national survey data on FW in order to investigate the correlation.

and control you feel you have over the way your life turns out.”.

Effect?


23. Carey & Paulhus (2013)

Experiment 1: Design: Correlational Manipulation/Conditions: N/A

Task: Participants had to fill in the following questionnaires: FAD-

-Read a scenario -FAD-PLUS

-Religiosity scale

-Authoritarianism scale

-Belief in a Just World

Experiment 1:

-220 participants

-60% were female; 40% male

-Mean age = 20.96 (SD=2.46)

-All undergraduate

All three experiments demonstrated that BFW is positively correlated to measures of religiosity and more conservative moral foundations, as well as more severe punitiveness.

-Social



44

PLUS, Religiosity, Authoritarianism and Belief in a Just World.


Task: Participants completed the following questionnaires: FAD-PLUS, religiosity and conservatism, RWA and the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religiosity Scale.

Experiment 3: Design: Correlational Manipulation/Conditions: Participants had to read two scenarios: The Molester Scenario and the Rapist Scenario. The Molester scenario had two ratings, one with the original story (Time 1) and

-Conservatism scale

-RWA

-Moral

-Foundations questionnaire

students

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-253 participants from North America


-Age range: 18–64; and Mean age = 34.3 (SD = 13.2).

Effect?


Experiment 3:

-161 participants


-Mean age = 20.2 (SD = 2.34)


Effect?

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:


Experiment 3:


45

one with additional information about the offender (Time 2). Task: Participants filled the following questionnaires: FAD-PLUS and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. They were then given the scenarios to read, and had to answer sentencing and blame questions.


24. Viney, Parker-Martin & Dotten (1988)

Experiment 1:


Task: Participants filled out the FWD scale after attending a lecture on the topic of FW and Determinism, and were then asked to indicate a punishment for the 4 following felonies: Premeditated

-Attending lectures

-FAD Experiment 1:

-76 participants

-41 females; 32 males; 3 unreported

-All students

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-58 participants

-All students

Effect?

Both experiments demonstrated that high BFW is related to a higher likelihood of choosing to rehabilitate offenders.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:




46

Murder, Carefully planned Burglary, Arson and Manslaughter. Furthermore, participants were asked to justify the punishment they chose, and could select between two utilitarian and two retributive forms of justification.


Task: Idem as experiment 1, except for the FW and D. lecture.


25. Sarkissian, Chatterjee, De Brigard, Knobe, Nichols & Sirker (2010)


Task: Participants read passages about a deterministic and non-deterministic universe and had to

-Read a scenario N/A -231 participants

-66 from University of Arizona and University of Utah, United-States (50% females); 55 from Jadavpur University, India (42% female); 40

In all four groups, a majority of participants believed our world was not deterministic and that moral responsibility is not compatible with determinism.

Effect size?

N/A Folk intuition

47

answer a determinist and compatibilist question.

from Hong Kong University, Hong Kong (gender % not available); 70 from Universidad Javeriana, Colombia (63% female)


Effect?



26. Chernyak & Kushnir (2014)

Experiment 1: Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: Children went through four trials where puppets would lay out rules (Two controls and two moral constraints).

Task: Children were given a free choice in regards to what they wanted to draw. The experimenter then challenged their free

N/A N/A Experiment 1:

-32 participants

-10 girls; 22 boys

-Mean age = 4,8 (SD = 5 months)

Effect?


Experiment 2:

Idem as Experiment 1.

Both experiments demonstrated that 4 and 5 year olds tend to associate freedom of choice with voluntary behaviors rather than with constrained behaviors and that when given voluntary choice, they rather follow rules and avoid harm than the opposite.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:

-Choice



48

choice (why did you not do otherwise?). All children were then put through the four trials. Finally, all participants underwent another free choice trial.

Experiment 2: Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: Same as experiment 1

Task: Same as experiment 1, but with only one free choice trial.

Effect?



Experiment 2:

When choice was restricted, children were less likely to endorse freedom of choice even in morally neutral scenarios: d=0.57 (medium)

27. Laurene, Rakos, Tisak, Robichaud & Horvath (2011)


Task: Participants from juvenile and regular detention centers were asked to fill the following questionnaires: FAD, Attitudes Toward Punishment Scale, Genetic Determinism

N/A -FAD


-Attitudes towards Punishment scale

-Genetic Determinism scale

-11-item

Adolescent group:

-85 participants (68 for final sample)


-Age range: 12-17; and Mean age = 15.60 (SD = 1.28)

-All Midwest juvenile detention centers and jails

For both incarcerated adults and adolescents, BFW is positively correlated to rehabilitation. Furthermore, for incarcerated adults, BFW correlates positively with self-esteem, and negatively with locus of control.

Effect size?

-Cognition

-Social



49

Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Abbreviated 11-item Rotter IE Scale and the Social and Personal Attitudes Questionnaire.

Rotter IE scale

-Social and Personal Attitudes Questionnaire

Adult group:

-107 participants (82 for final sample)


-Age range: 18-58; and Mean age = 28.32 (SD=8.47).

Effect?



28. Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer & Turner (2005)

Experiment 1:

Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were asked to read scenarios where the character’s actions varied: one morally blameworthy, one morally praise worthy and one neutral

Task: Participants with no knowledge of the FW debate were asked if a

-Read a scenario N/A Not specified Both experiments demonstrated that pre-theoretical folk intuitions are not incompatibilist. Specifically, laypersons who were not exposed to the FW debate tend to disbelieve that FW and determinism are a strict dichotomy.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:

-N/A Folk intuition

50

character named Jeremy was responsible for robbing a bank, even though a super computer had predicted the event. The experiment was contrasted with two other actions in order to verify if the blameworthiness of the stealing had an effect on the decision. Lastly, participants were asked about his ability to do otherwise.

Experiment 2: Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were assigned to read two scenarios: two characters find a wallet; one keeps the money (Fred) and the other one returns the money (Barney). This time, the description of


51

determinism is even more explicit in that their behavior is entirely explained by phenomena out of their control (genes and environment). Task: Participants were tested on questions of FW and DT and also on moral praiseworthiness or blameworthiness.

29. Feltz, Cokely & Nadelhoffer (2009)

Experiment 1: Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: All participants read two scenarios made up of high (ex. murder scenario) and low (ex. sharing food) affect vignettes describing Universes A (deterministic) and B (free will).

Task: Participants were asked 2 questions; one general question (is it possible to be

-Read a scenario -N/A Experiment 1:

-52 participants

-All undergraduates

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-85 participants

-All undergraduates

Effect?


Experiment 3:

All three experiments demonstrated that folk intuitions about FW and moral responsibility tend to be incompatibilist in nature.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:


Experiment 3:


-N/A Folk intuition

52

morally responsible for our actions in Universe A) and one specific question (is Bill [the murderer] morally responsible for his actions).

Experiment 2: Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: All participants read 2 scenarios made up of high (ex. murder scenario) and low (ex. sharing food) affect vignettes describing Universe A (deterministic) and B (free will).

Task: Participants went through the same procedure as Experiment 1, but with a focus on FW rather than moral responsibility.

Experiment 3: 110 participants went through the same procedures as

-110 participants

-All undergraduate

Effect?


53

Experiment 2 (goal was to increase statistical power).

30. Pronin & Kugler (2010)

Experiment 1: Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/conditions: Participants were randomly assigned to fill out one of two questionnaires

Task: The questionnaires were on the predictability of certain past and future events, either in their life or the life of their roommate. The past events were: Their acceptance to Princeton, the major they chose, and the demise of their last relationship. The future events were: Their career choice, the person they will marry and in what

N/A -Other Not specified

Effect?

N/A

All four experiments demonstrated that people tend to have more deterministic reasoning about others than about themselves.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:


Experiment 3:


Experiment 4:


-Volition

-Choice


54

state they will live.

Experiment 2: Design: Correlational Manipulation/conditions: N/A

Task: Participants had to answer three questions about their own and their coworkers’ life in the next 10 years. The questions were as follow and each had seven possibilities: Where they would live (house, apartment, etc.), their job (same, different, more or less money, etc.) and their life in general (calmer, more exciting, etc.).

Experiment 3: Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/conditions: Participants were randomly assigned to fill one of

55

two questionnaires

Task: The questionnaires were about their or their friend’s life post-graduation. There were 11 questions with each three types of possibilities (desirable, undesirable or possibly both).

Experiment 4: Design: Correlational Manipulation/conditions: N/A

Task: Participants were asked to draw box models predicting either their behavior on a Saturday night, or their roommates’ behavior after graduating college. Their predictions had to be based on four factors (situation, personality, desires/intentions and past behavior)

56

and they had to indicate how important each factor was in their predictions.

31. Aarts & van den Bos (2011)


Manipulation/conditions: Four types of trials were used in order to evaluate the intentional binding of actions and outcomes.

Task: Participants went through all trials; all trials involved a clock that allowed participants to evaluate the happening of certain events in time. In trial 1, participants would press a key and hear a tone, and they had to judge the onset of the key press. Trial 2 was

N/A -FAD Experiment 1:

-44 participants

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-55 participants

-All undergraduate

Effect?


Both experiments demonstrated that higher BFW is linked to a more salient focus on outcomes than actions (i.e. anticipation) and a higher sensitivity to priming.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:

Analyses revealed a significant interaction between judgment and agency: ηp

2 = .45 (large).

Judging the onset of the tone when it was preceded by the action (vs. not preceded by the action) produced an even stronger negative judgment error. This interaction effect was qualified by a significant three-way interaction involving FW score: ηp

2 = .09

-Cognition

-Volition


57

similar, but participants had to judge the onset of the tone. In trial 3, they had to key press but heard no tone, and they had to judge the onset of the key press. In trial 4, there was no key press and simply a tone, and participants had to judge the onset of the tone. Lastly, all participants filled out the FW scale.

Experiment 2:

Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/Conditions: 2 Conditions: one with a primed stimulus (black square); the other with the same stimulus not primed. Task: Participants were instructed to key press in order to stop a gray square from moving through

(medium).

Analyses showed that the interaction between judgment and agency effect was significant for participants with weak beliefs in free will: ηp

2 = .14 (large).

Experiment 2:

Analysis yielded a main effect of priming: ηp

2 = .25 (large).

Analysis yielded a marginally significant effect of FW score: ηp

2 = .05 (small).

These effects were qualified by a significant interaction between priming and FW score: ηp

2 = .07 (medium).

Priming strongly augmented these participants’ experiences of self-agency: ηp

2 = .27 (large).

There was a non-significant tendency for priming to enhance the

58

a rectangular path. At one point, they also had to press the enter key, which turned one background tile black, and was supposed to indicate either the position of their own square or that of the computer. Once again, all participants filled the FW scale.

experienced self-agency in participants with a low FW score: ηp

2 = .04 (large).

32. Shepard & Reuter (2012)

Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/conditions: Two scenarios (Frankfurt scenario or intervention scenario). In each scenario, the main character has a chip implanted inside his head that allows for a doctor to control his decisions. In the Frankfurt scenario, the chip is not activated while it is the opposite for the

-Read a scenario -N/A -50 participants

Effect?


The concept of FW depends on the folk concept of choice. On the other hand, the concepts of FW and choice don’t depend on one’s inability to choose otherwise.

Effect size?


-N/A Folk intuition

59

intervention scenario. Task: Participants were asked three questions about the character: Did he make the choice? Did he vote of his own FW? Could he have chosen otherwise?

33. Earp (2011) Experiment 1:

Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were assigned to copy either a first or third-person passage describing either morally good or bad behavior.

Task: All participants then answered the following question: How much do each of the following contribute to causing typical human behavior?: A)

-Rewrite a passage

-N/A Experiment 1:

-50 participants


-Age range = 18-27; Mean age =19.36 (SD = 1.69)

Effect?


Experiment 2:

-41 participants


-Age range = 18-23; Mean age = 19.72 (SD = 1.34)

Both experiments demonstrated that behavior tends to be attributed to FW if an event is described in the first-person in contrast to in the third-person.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:


-Cognition What influences BFW/DT or concept of FW

60

genes/environment/early learning B) immediate situation/circumstances C) free will

Experiment 2: Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/Conditions: Same as in experiment 1, but the passages described successful or unsuccessful situations in first of third person perspectives.

Task: Same as in experiment 1.

Effect?


34. Wegner & Wheatley (1999)


Manipulation/Conditions: Participants were paired with a confederate and asked to move around a computer mouse. Every 30

-N/A -N/A -51 participants


-All undergraduate

Effect?


Results show that forced stops are often perceived as intended, and that this feeling is strongest when priming occurs in very short delay.

Effect size?


-Cognition

-Intentionality


61

seconds they were asked to stop, and to rate their personal intentionality compared to the other participants’ in making it stop. Both participants had headphones on, but as the undergraduate heard musical instructions and priming of the objects on the screen, the confederate heard specific instructions of when and how to move the mouse.

35. Stillman & Baumeister (2010)

Experiment 1:

Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/Conditions: Participants had to read a passage depending on their condition: FW, neutral or DT.

Task: Each participant was then asked to write about

-Passages to read

-Articles to read

-N/A Experiment 1:

-132 participants


-80% White, 8% black, 12% other or not reported (12% reported Hispanic ethnicity)


Effect?

All three experiments showed that reducing BFW decreases learning from emotional experiences.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:

Participants who reported high levels of guilt indicated they had learned more in the control condition than those in the

-Cognition

-Social


62

a time they hurt someone and rate how guilty they felt about it, as well as how much they learned from the experience.

Experiment 2: Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/Conditions: Participants had to read a passage depending on their conditions: Neutral or determinism.

Task: Participants filled out a measure of primary psychopathy and were then randomly assigned to describe an event that either elicited guilt, fear or pride. They were asked to rate the intensity of the emotion. Participants were then assigned to one of two conditions, and had


Experiment 2:

-195 participants

-157 females; 38 males -74% White; 15% Black, 11% other or not reported (10% reported Hispanic ethnicity)

Effect?


Experiment 3:

-138 participants

-All females

-66% White, 8% Black 26% other race or not specify (twenty-two percent reported Hispanic ethnicity)

Effect?


determinism: d=1.45 (large).

Among those reporting low-intensity emotions, marginally significant mean differences emerged between participants in the neutral condition and participants in the determinism condition: d=1.07 (large).

Among those reporting high intensity guilt, BFW was associated with learning more compared to the determinism condition: d =1.64 (large).

Among those reporting high levels of guilt, the conditions in which BFW was not undermined reported high levels of learning, whereas those in the determinism condition did not: d =1.55 (large).

Differences between the determinism condition

63

to indicate what they had learned and how much they had learned from the experience they described.

Experiment 3:

Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/Condition: Same two conditions as in experiment 1. Additionally, experimenters induced a feeling of guilt through a reading task.

Task: Same as in experiment 1. Participants were then induced the feeling of guilt. Lastly, participants were asked to rate their feelings of guilt and were given the opportunity to volunteer for a campus cleaning

and the combined control conditions did not emerge for those reporting low-intensity emotions: d =.85 (large).

Experiment 2:

Participants high in psychopathy assigned to the determinism condition reported learning relatively little compared to participants high in psychopathy in the control condition: d=1.46 (large).

Among participants in the determinism condition, people low in psychopathy reported learning significantly more than those high in psychopathy: d = 1.28 (large).

Among participants high in psychopathy, the determinism induction reduced the ability to articulate a valuable lesson relative to those in the neutral condition: d = 1.88 (large).

64

program. For those low in psychopathy, the determinism induction did not have an effect on the value of the lesson learned relative to those in the control condition: d = .97 (large).

There was a significant difference among participants in the determinism condition, such that those high in psychopathy learned significantly less valuable lessons than those low in psychopathy: d = 1.67 (large).

Among participants low in psychopathy, the determinism induction did not affect intentions for behavioral change relative to participants in the neutral condition: d = .48 (small).

Among participants assigned to the determinism condition, those high in psychopathy intended to

65

do significantly less behavioral change than those low in psychopathy: d = 1.23 (large).

The determinism induction significantly decreased the long-term benefit of the lesson among those high in psychopathy relative to controls: d = 2.06 (large).

For participants low in psychopathy, the determinism induction did not reduce the capacity to articulate a long-term benefit relative to those in the control condition: d = .25 (small).

Low psychopathy was associated with learning more than high psychopathy in the determinism condition: d = 1.74 (large).

Experiment 3:


66

36. Waldman, Viney, Bell, Bennett & Hess (1983)


Task: Participants were asked to fill out the FWD scale and the James scale (internal/external locus of control).

N/A -FAD

-James scale

-141 participants


Effect?


There was no significant relationship between belief in internal locus of control and FW or between belief in external locus of control and DT.

Effect size?

No effect size reported

-Cognition

-Affect


37. Nhamias (2006)

Experiment 1:

Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: Three different scenarios were presented to participants (a lightning bolt hitting a tree, a woman choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream and a woman who steals a necklace)

Task: Participants were assigned to read three scenarios and answer different ‘Yes/No/I don’t know” questions.

-Read a scenario -N/A Experiment 1:

-99 participants

-All students

Effect?


Experiment 2:

Not specified

Effect?


Both experiments show that laypersons do not consider psychological determinism (i.e., any choice that has prior sufficient causes cannot be free or deserving of praise or blame) as a threat to FW, compared to neuro-reductionist DT (i.e., reducing decision-making and action to neurobiological processes).

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:


-N/A Folk intuition

67

The they were asked if this event would have occurred in exactly the same way if the universe was re-created over and over again under the same circumstances every time.

Experiment 2:

Design: Quasi-experimental Manipulation/Conditions: Two scenarios describing the actions of humans from another Earth as being determined by passed events. Scenario 1 emphasized neuroscience and physical environments as key elements of this world, while Scenario 2 emphasized psychology, upbringing, personality and values as main aspects of this world.

68

Task: Participants were assigned to read one of the scenarios. They asked if these humans could act of their own FW, and if they could/should be blamed or receive credit for their actions.

38. Nahmias & Murray (2010)


Manipulation/Conditions: Four scenarios about fictional universes. The scenarios were either concrete or abstract and were replicas from either Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer and Turner (2005) or Nichols and Knobe’s (2007) experiments.

Task: Participants were assigned to read one of the scenarios. All participants were asked to compare these fictional universes to ours and

-Read a scenario -Other -249 participants


Effect?


Results demonstrated that when incompatibilist intuitions are expressed, it is often due to a misinterpretation of determinism. Furthermore, when bypassing is included in one’s definition of determinism, compatibilist intuitions are more likely to be expressed.

Effect size?


-N/A Folk intuition

69

had to answer questions about moral responsibility, FW and blameworthiness. In order to verify comprehension of determinism, participants were asked questions about bypassing.

39. Nahmias, Coates & Kvaran (2007)

Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/Conditions: Eight scenarios which varied on the following elements: whether the universe described was real or fictional, whether the characters were abstract, or performing concretely good or bad acts, and whether the determinism in the scenario was rooted in neuroscience or psychology.

-Read a scenario -Other -1 124 participants

-57.5% female; 41.2% male; 1.3% gender not specified

Effect?


Results show that compatibilist intuitions have a higher likelihood of being expressed when determinism is described in a psychological way (compared to a neuroscientific way). Also, it was shown that FW and moral responsibility judgements significantly increase when characters are presented as performing concretely good or bad actions.

Effect size?


-N/A Folk intuition

70

Task: Participants were assigned to read one of the scenarios and then answered multiple questions about FW and moral responsibility.

40. Rakos, Steyer, Skala & Slane (2008)



Task: Participants were administered eight different questionnaires: the Social and Personal Attitudes Questionnaire, the FWD scale, the Attitudes Toward Punishment Scale, the Genetic Determinism Scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Abbreviated 11-item IE Rotter Scale and the Salience in Religious Commitment Scale.

N/A -FAD


-Attitudes towards Punishment scale

-Genetic Determinism scale

-11-item Rotter IE scale

-Social and Personal Attitudes Questionnaire

-Salience in Religious Commitment scale

High school sample:

-76 participants


-55% 14 years old; 29% 15 years old

College sample:

-85 participants

-Age range = 18 to mature adult

Effect?


Results show that laypersons seem to naturally endorse the concept of FW. Both adolescents and adults with a high BFW view punishment in terms of retribution; adults also endorse rehabilitation and deterrence. High BFW is also associated with accountability for moral blameworthiness; adults also perceive opportunities for change when blamed. Adolescents with high BFW have greater religious convictions than adults. High BFW is associated with high self-esteem in both groups. In both groups, an inverse relationship was found between high BFW and locus of

-Cognition

-Social


Folk intuition Correlates of BFW/DT

71

control.

Effect size?


41. Nichols (2006)



Task: Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire and to predict if psychological duplicates of themselves would make the same decisions as them if presented with the exact same circumstances.



Task: Participants went through the same questionnaire, but it was sent by

N/A -Other Experiment 1:

-30 participants


Effect?


Experiment 2:

-8 participants


Effect?


Both experiments demonstrated that laypersons tend to accept psychological determinism.

Effect size?

Experiment 1:


Experiment 2:


-N/A Folk intuition

72

email this time.

42. Stroessner & Green (2001)



Task: Participants filled out three questionnaires: one measuring attitudes toward punishment, one measuring locus of control and the other measuring BFW/DT.

N/A -Other -507 participants

-All students

-Large majority Protestant; 11% Roman Catholic

Effect?


Results show that belief in DT is multidimensional, with psychosocial and religious-philosophical manifestations emerging. Attitude towards punishment (punitiveness and rehabilitation) also seem to be multidimensional. It was found that libertarianism appears to be separate from absence of determinism. Furthermore, it was found that extreme libertarianism or extreme religious-philosophical determinists is related to higher punitiveness. Also, religious-philosophical determinists were shown to express higher internal locus of control than psychosocial determinists. Finally, religious determinists seem to emphasize God as an important external

-Cognition

-Social


Folk intuition

73

force in their own life, while displaying environmental factors as more important forces in other people’s lives.

Effect size?


43. Demanet, Muhle-Karbe, Lynn, Blotenberg & Brass (2013)

Design: Experimental (Random Assignment) Manipulation/Conditions: Participants went through an intentional binding task where they had to exert low or high effort on an elastic band.

Task: The experiment included four blocks, where the event they had to judge was either a tone or an action, and where, depending on the condition, there was (or not) an instrumental relation between the actions

-N/A -N/A -36 participants



Effect?


Results showed that the exertion of high effort is linked to a higher bias towards binding intentional actions with sensory outcomes. This suggests that effort is directly related to one’s sense of agency.

Effect size?

Analyses revealed a significant two way interaction between judgment and agency: ηp

2 = .466 (large).

The intentional binding effect was further qualified by a significant three-way interaction between judgment, agency, and

-Cognition What influences BFW/DT or concept of FW

74

and the tones. All participants performed two runs of the four blocks, under low and high effort.

effort: ηp2 = .150 (large).

Analyses showed that the overall intentional binding score was significantly enhanced in the high effort condition compared to the low effort condition: d = .413 (small).

44. Mogi (2013)



N/A

Task: Participants filled in an online survey about their academic performances at school, belief in paranormal

worldviews, theological views, political views,

and views on one’s own death.

N/A N/A -1129 participants

-662 males, 467 females

-Mean age 36.5, SD 11.1

Effect of sample characteristics on result? No analyses conducted

BFW and awareness of qualia were found to significantly and positively correlate with the understanding of FW and qualia (respectively), belief in God, and liberal political views. They both significantly and negatively correlated with the fear of pain and death. BFW correlated positively with nationalist tendencies, the assessment of the difficulty of scientific elucidation of consciousness, and paranormal beliefs, and negatively with knowledge in mathematics and physical sciences.

-Cognition Correlates of BFW/DT

75

Awareness of qualia significantly and positively correlated with academic performance and knowledge in mathematics and physical sciences.

Effect size?


45. Ebert, Wegner (2011)

Experiment 1

Design: Experimental (Random assignment)


1) Deterministic condition, where the prompts to press keys P and Q continuously alternated

2) Random condition, where there was a 50%

-N/A -Other

-PANAS

-FAD

Experiment 1

-249 participants


Experiment 2

-299 participants


Effect?

No analyses conducted

Randomness in behaviour influences perception of how free an action is. More precisely, participants associated randomness in both theirs and others’ actions as having been led by FW.

Effect size?

Experiment 1

Unpredictability of the prompts was greater in the random condition ηp

2= .52 (large)

Perceived choice was

-Cognition

-Social

What influences BFW

76

chance that prompts P or Q would appear.

Task: Participants had to press the letter P or Q on the keyboard as soon as the corresponding prompt appeared on screen. All then filled questionnaires about perceived free choice, perceived unpredictability of the prompts, how boring the task was, as well as the I-PANAS-SF and FAD.

Experiment 2a



1) Deterministic condition, where the alien figures performed the same

greater in the random condition ηp

2= .05 (small)

Perceived choice was non-significantly lower in the preview condition than in the no preview condition ηp

2= .01 (small)

Sequence condition influenced perceived choice ηp

2= .04 (small)

Experiment 2a

Perceived unpredictability was greater for the random alien ηp

2= .28 (large)

Perceived choice was greater for the random alien ηp

2= .11 (large)

The two-item measure of FW interacted with sequence condition Rchange

2= .03 (small)

Experiment 2b

Perceived unpredictability was greater for the random

77

sequences of actions seven times

2) Random condition, where the alien figures performed random sequences of actions

Task: Participants were asked to rate perceived free choice of the aliens. They also filled measures about the different possible personality attributes of the aliens. FAD scale, BFW measure and demographic measures.

Experiment 2b



Same as Experiment 2a, except the aliens moved about on a

alien ηp2= .41 (large)

Perceived choice was greater for the random alien ηp

2= .13 (large)

78

terrain

Task: Same as experiment 2a. Participants were also asked to judge whether the aliens’ movements were constrained by the terrain.

46. Filevich, Vanneste, Brass, Fias, Haggard & Kuhn (2013)



1) Classical context, where participants performed free and instructed tasks

2) Objective context, where participants performed free and instructed tasks followed by a context question (“How free was your choice?”)

3) Subjective context, where participants chose an action following a suggestive stimulus,

N/A -Other

-FAD

-Social Desirability scale

-Rotter scale

-23 participants


-Mean age 22, SD 2

Effect?


Free actions and the feeling of acting freely activate brain areas differentially. More precisely, the five identified brain regions (i.e., anterior cingulate cortex, bilateral inferior parietal lobule, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and left premotor cortex) showed more activation during the free, objective context than during the free, subjective context.

Effect size?


-Cognition

-Neurobiology

What is influenced by BFW

What correlates with BFW

79

and answered the same context question in relation to the stimulus presented.

Task: While in an fMRI, participants went through 160 trials where they were presented with either a sequence of four numbers or four X’s above a response grid containing four numbers. Depending on the context, participants answered a question about free choice following their selection of a number in the grid. All then completed personality measures as well as measures about their randomization strategies.

47. Stillman, Baumeister & Mele (2011)


N/A N/A -99 participants


Free actions were associated with positive outcome and goal attainment, delayed gratification, and going

-Cognition

-Social


80


1) Free will condition, where participants described an event from their life where they acted of their own FW.

2) Unfree condition, where participants described an event from their life where their behaviour did not result from FW.

Task: Participants had to describe in detail an important event from their life that was linked to FW (or not, depending on condition). Events were rated by research assistants on outcome (positive or negative), attainment, long-term self-interest, short-term self-interest, consciousness, moral behaviour, external

-All undergraduates

-Mean age 20.2

Effect?


against external forces

Unfree actions were more often linked to harming others and going against moral values.

Effect size?


81

pressures, harm to social group and presence of powerful other.

48. Monroe & Malle (2010)

Experiment 1



N/A

Task: Participants were asked to explain what they think it means to have free will. Responses were categorized as either a decision or choice, following one’s desires or overcoming constraints.

Experiment 2



N/A N/A Experiment 1 and 2

-180 participants

Effect?


Folk intuition about FW is most linked to free choice, and laypersons believe the ability to exercise a choice justifies FW in the face of determinism. More precisely, FW was mostly associated with the ability to decide, followed by desires or wants, and being free from external constraints.

Effect size?


-Choice Folk intuition


82

N/A

Task: Participants were presented with a deterministic passage, and asked whether the “fact” presented sounded believable. If they disagreed, they were asked to provide an argument against the claim. Responses were categorized as choice, shielding, “neural impulses are caused” or “neural impulses do not explain”.

49. Chernyak, Kushnir, Sullivan & Wang (2013)



N/A

Task: Children were interviewed, and answered 27 items about FW and fictional characters that fell into 9 categories (Free choice, physical

N/A N/A -45 Nepalese children

-21 females; 23 males; 1 gender not recorded

-Mean age 8.22; SD 1.85

-31 American children


Results show that intuitions about choice and constraint emerge early in life and are culturally universal. More precisely, both Nepalese and American children (ages 4-11) recognize freedom of choice to perform simple actions, all while highlighting that actions can be constrained by physical and mental laws. Both cultures were

-Choice What influences BFW/DT or FW

83

laws, mental constraints, social norms, artifact conventions, moral norms, arbitrary rules, justified rules and selfish acts). After each item, children were asked two questions about the character’s actions (i.e., can he act in line with desire and will he act in line with his desire).

-Mean age 7.23; SD 1.73

Effect?

Preliminary results showed no gender differences or differences between rural and urban areas in Nepalese children

found to differ on their views of social constraints.

Effect size?


50. Feltz & Cokely (2009)



Participants were asked to read a scenario and answer three follow-up questions about the main character.

Task: Participants in lower-level philosophy classes were asked to read a psychologically non-

-Read a scenario -Big Five personality inventory

-58 undergraduate students

Effect?

No sex differences were found (no effect sizes reported)

The results show that extraversion is a reliable predictor of compatibilist and incompatibilist intuitions. Specifically, those high in extraversion are more likely to demonstrate compatibilist intuitions when it comes to questions of FW and moral responsibility.

Effect sizes?

Significant relationships between compatibilism

-Social


Folk intuition


84

reductionist real world concrete scenario. They then had to rate how much they agreed on three statements (i.e., John’s decision to kill his wife was ‘‘up to him.”; John decided to kill his wife of his own free will; John is morally responsible for killing his wife.). All then filled a brief version of the Big Five personality inventory.

and extraversion (“Up to him” R2 = .14 (small); “free will” R2 = .08 (small); “responsible” R2 = .08 (small))

Differences in responses between those high and low in extraversion were significant (“Up to him” d = .9 (large); “free will” d = .8 (large); “responsible” d = .6 (medium))

51. Haynes, Rojas & Viney (2003)



Participants were asked to fill the FAD, and were then categorized into four groups 1) determinists

2) weak libertarians

3) moderate

N/A -FAD

-Attitudes toward Punishment scale

-Punishment Magnitude and Rationale scales

-32 junior and senior students

-21 men; 11 women

-Ages 18 to 24

Effect?


Results show that determinists are less punitive than libertarians.

Effect sizes?

No effect size reported

-Ideas about morality/justice

Folk intuition


85

libertarians

4) strong libertarians

Task: Following baseline measures of BFW, participants were asked to fill two questionnaires about their attitudes toward punishment.

52. Nichols & Knobe (2007)

Experiment 1


Manipulation/Conditions: Two descriptions about fictional universes (one deterministic and one indeterministic), as well as scenarios which were either concrete or abstract.

Task: Participants were asked to read both descriptions of the universe and choose which resembles most our own. Participants were then assigned to

-Read a scenario -N/A -Undergraduate students

Experiment 1 and 2

Effect?


Results show that participants’ folk intuitions about moral responsibility depend on whether affect is triggered or not. More precisely, when presented with scenarios that trigger high affective responses, participants are more likely to give a compatibilist response about moral responsibility than in cases where scenarios trigger low affective responses.

Effect size?


-N/A Folk intuition

86

read either concrete or abstract scenarios and to answer questions about moral responsibility.

Experiment 2


Manipulation/Conditions: Same as experiment 1, except the scenarios were categorized as high or low affect.

Task: Same as experiment 1.

Legend for scales

FAD: Free will and Determinism Scale FAD-PLUS: Proposed improvement of the FAD FWD: Free will-Determinism scale PANAS: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule PANAS-X: Extended version of PANAS. Also measures more complex affective states. I-PANAS-SF: International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form IRI: Interpersonal Reactivity Index BMIS: Brief Mood Introspection ScaleLOC: Locus of Control scale RWA: Right Wing Authoritarianism scale

87

11-item Rotter IE scale: 11-item Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control scale

88

static-content.springer.com10.1007... · web viewparticipants filled out the fwd scale after...

Documents