Skip to main content
PMC home page
Sage Choice logoLink to Sage Choice
. 2017 Jul 25;9(5):539–549. doi: 10.1177/1948550617713254

Laypersons’ Beliefs and Intuitions About Free Will and Determinism

New Insights Linking the Social Psychology and Experimental Philosophy Paradigms

Gilad Feldman 1,✉, Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar 2
PMCID: PMC6113710  PMID: 30220960

Abstract

We linked between the social psychology and experimental philosophy paradigms for the study of folk intuitions and beliefs regarding the concept of free will to answer three questions: (1) What intuitions do people have about free will and determinism? (2) Do free will beliefs predict differences in free will and determinism intuitions? and (3) Is there more to free will and determinism than experiencing certainty or uncertainty about the nature of the universe? Overall, laypersons viewed the universe as allowing for human indeterminism, and they did so with certainty. Examining intuitions of prosociality, future orientation, learning, meaningfulness, human uniqueness, and well-being, ratings were highest in the indeterministic universe condition and lowest in the deterministic universe condition, both significantly different from the uncertain universe condition. Participants’ free will beliefs had only weak impact on realism, happiness, and learning intuitions but did not reverse the general intuition favoring indeterminism and showed no impact on other intuitions.

Keywords: free will, experimental philosophy, belief in free will, intuitions

Introduction

How do people understand free will and determinism? How do people view a world with free will or a deterministic universe? In the last decade, experimental philosophers and social psychologists have made significant advances in the understanding of folk intuitions and lay beliefs regarding the concept of free will, offering new insights regarding this long debate and highly controversial topic. The two research streams, however, have been focusing on different research questions. Experimental philosophers have mainly focused on the question of how laypersons think about free will and whether they perceive free will and determinism as compatible or not. Social psychologists have focused their attention on exploring beliefs more broadly and have examined the consequences of free will and deterministic beliefs for cognition and behavior. There are also some differences in methodological approach. Experimental philosophers mainly examine their research questions using thought experiments by introducing participants to hypothetical scenarios and testing folk intuitions (Knobe et al., 2012; Nichols, 2011), while social psychologists mainly use scales to measure individual differences in the endorsement of free will and employ priming techniques to examine relationships with various behavioral factors (Baumeister & Monroe, 2014). The intersection of the two streams is promising, with the potential of the two bodies of literature and methodologies to inform one another and give rise to new insights.

The present investigation aims at the intersection of the two views, by extending the classical experimental philosophy paradigm to incorporate recent developments in social psychology in several ways: (1) examining laypersons’ free will and determinism intuitions for a wide array of factors found to be associated with free will beliefs (e.g., learning, happiness, prosociality, etc.), (2) examining the relationship between individual differences in free will beliefs and free will–related folk intuitions, and (3) exploring whether laypersons’ free will and determinism intuitions are related to uncertainty regarding the nature of the universe. We discuss each of those extensions in detail, and report an empirical investigation.

New Intuitions About Free Will and Determinism

A large body of research has consistently shown that in people’s minds, the concept of free will is linked to moral responsibility based on the idea that free will is a prerequisite for holding people accountable for their behavior (Kant, 1788/1997). People view free actions as more accountable than actions that are not free (Stillman, Baumeister, & Mele, 2011), rate immoral actors as freer than moral actors (Feldman, Wong, & Baumeister, 2016; Phillips & Knobe, 2009), and report stronger beliefs in free will after being presented with immoral actors or actions (Clark et al., 2014; Shariff et al., 2014). Judgments of free will are associated with judgments of blame (Clark, Baumeister, & Ditto, 2017; Guglielmo, Monroe, & Malle, 2009; Malle, Guglielmo, & Monroe, 2014; Monroe, Dillon, & Malle, 2014), and disbelief in free will or the activation of the concept of determinism is associated with weaker moral attitudes (Carey & Paulhus, 2013) and less moral behavior (Vohs & Schooler, 2008).

The importance of the concept of free will is not limited to moral judgments. Studies have also shown that free will beliefs are associated with outcomes related to the pursuit of self-directed goals and coexistence with others in society. Supporting the sociofunctional role of free will (Baumeister, 2008a, 2008b; Baumeister & Monroe, 2014), the belief in free will has been associated with more prosocial and less aggressive behavior (Baumeister, Masicampo, & DeWall, 2009), more guilt over wrongdoings (Stillman & Baumeister, 2010), and more gratitude (Crescioni, Baumeister, Ainsworth, Ent, & Lambert, 2016; MacKenzie, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2014). In support of the self-promoting view of free will (Dennett, 2003), the belief in free will predicted higher autonomy and less conformity (Alquist, Ainsworth, & Baumeister, 2013) and better learning (Alquist, Ainsworth, Baumeister, Daly, & Stillman, 2015; Feldman, Chandrashekar, & Wong, 2016), which partly explain associations with positive outcomes such as higher job evaluations (Stillman et al., 2010), lower helplessness and higher self-efficacy (Baumeister & Brewer, 2012), higher perceived capacity and more positive attitudes toward decision-making (Feldman, Baumeister, & Wong, 2014), and a more future-oriented perspective (Seligman, Railton, Baumeister, & Sripada, 2013). Furthermore, the belief in free will also aids in providing believers with a deeper sense of meaning in their lives, stronger feelings of belongingness, and higher subjective feelings of well-being (Baumeister, Bauer, & Lloyd, 2010; Bergner & Ramon, 2013; Crescioni et al., 2016; Leotti, Iyengar, & Ochsner, 2010; Li, Wang, Zhao, Kong, & Li, 2016; Moynihan, Igou, & van Tilburg, 2017).

These findings broaden our understanding of the functional role of the belief in free will as encompassing a comprehensive view of humans as unique animals, proactive and future-oriented agents, capable of change, learning, and improvement (Baumeister & Monroe, 2014; Feldman, 2017). Experimental philosophers have traditionally focused on intuitions of compatibilism, morality, causality, intent, deliberation, and meaning (Feltz & Cova, 2014; Nahmias, Coates, & Kvaran, 2007), with more recent extensions to psychological factors previously associated with free will beliefs (Bear & Knobe, 2016) as well as examining links with choice, decision-making, and reasoning (Feldman et al., 2014; Monroe & Malle, 2010; Rose & Nichols, 2013). Yet, many of the associations found in social psychology about free will beliefs have not yet been explored in experimental philosophy regarding free will intuitions. This raises our first research question of whether the observed links between the belief in free will and outcomes would also be reflected in laypersons’ intuitions about free will and determinism. Specifically, whether laypersons would show a cognitive association between indeterministic free-will and learning, meaning, prosociality, future orientation, and well-being.

Belief in Free Will and Free Will Intuitions

Free will intuitions are affected by both situational cues and stable individual differences (Cokely & Feltz, 2009; Cushman & Mele, 2008; Feltz, Cokely, & Nadelhoffer, 2009; Nichols & Ulatowski, 2007). Feltz and Cokely (2008) have shown that laypersons’ attributions of moral responsibility are affected by personality traits, such that those high in extroversion intuitively associated agents with higher free will in a hypothetical deterministic universe. The reasoning was that extroverts care more about social dynamics and therefore emphasize human freedom and responsibility to facilitate social functioning (Feltz & Cokely, 2009; Nadelhoffer, Kvaran, & Nahmias, 2009; Schulz, Cokely, & Feltz, 2011). These findings followed other individual differences found in attributions of intentionality (Cushman & Mele, 2008) and the Knobe (2003) effect in which people attribute higher intent to a bad side effect (secondary outcome) than to a positive side effect (Feltz & Cokely, 2007, 2008).

Individual differences related to free will are especially relevant to free will intuitions. While the link between beliefs and intuitions regarding free will may seem straightforward, as far as we know there has been no attempt to test the relationship between the two. Although beliefs are sometimes confused with perceptions, intuitions, or attitudes, there are important conceptual differences (Feldman, 2017). Broadly, beliefs are an endorsement of whether certain statements are true or accurate (e.g., I have free will), whereas intuitions involve judgments (e.g., free will is associated with good/bad, and/or it makes me feel positive/negative) or an evaluation of a situation or an object (e.g., this situation or hypothetical universe would allow me to choose more/less freely/morally). Importantly, beliefs are generally considered stable and cross-situational, while intuitions are more context-specific. This leads to our second research question of whether free will beliefs predict differences in free will related intuitions.

In connection with our first research question, an investigation of the intersection of beliefs and intuitions would provide another much-needed methodological bridge between the experimental philosophy and the social psychology paradigms.

Uncertainty About Free Will and Determinism

The studies following classic experimental philosophy paradigm looking at free will typically present participants with two types of hypothetical universes—a fully deterministic universe in which all life including human behavior is determined, and a universe in which human behavior is an exception and is not fully determined (Nichols, 2011; Nichols & Knobe, 2007). In these studies, participants are asked to judge which of the two universes better represents reality (realism) and then asked to rate attributions of moral responsibility under a specific universe (usually the deterministic universe, to assess compatibilism). In the majority of the studies that have employed this paradigm, most of the participants (over 90%) typically indicated the indeterminist universe as more likely representative of reality (and still embrace moral responsibility in a deterministic world, which is often interpreted as compatibilism). However, it was noted that framing of different aspects in the described hypothetical universes may affect people’s perceptions of realism (e.g., Feltz et al., 2009; Feltz & Cova, 2014; Roskies & Nichols, 2008).

One of the challenges in capturing people’s intuitions regarding the concepts of free will and determinism lies in the concept of uncertainty. A fully deterministic universe is a universe where there is no room for uncertainty. An indeterministic universe is a universe that allows for uncertainty (Lau, Hiemisch, & Baumeister, 2015) and incompatibilists’ free will has been associated with unpredictability (e.g., Brembs, 2011; Feldman, Wong, et al., 2016; Paulhus & Carey, 2011; Pronin & Kugler, 2010) and linked with the unexpected in alternative realities of what else could happen or could have happened (e.g., counterfactuals; Alquist et al., 2015; Seto, Hicks, Davis, & Smallman, 2015). It is possible that the findings in experimental philosophy showing participants rating the indeterministic universe as more realistic indeed reflect people’s strong intuitions against or disbelief in determinism (Sarkissian et al., 2010). Yet, it might instead reflect the participants’ uncertainty about the fundamental laws governing the universe, since our current scientific understanding does not allow for a complete mapping of all deterministic causes or for proof of free will or lack of determinism.

Examining uncertainty is about more than merely the need for a control condition in the classic experimental philosophy paradigm. Comparing uncertainty to indeterministic free will and determinism would allow us to verify that laypersons indeed have an intuition for indeterministic free will rather than expressing uncertainty regarding the existence of determinism or free will, as well as to potentially provide us with a clearer understanding of the differentiation that people make between indeterministic free will and uncertainty about the world.

The Present Investigation

We constructed an empirical investigation that targets the three discussed extensions: (1) testing new intuitions for concepts previously associated with free will beliefs, (2) examining the relationship between free will beliefs and intuitions regarding free will and determinism, and (3) comparing intuitions of free will and determinism to intuitions resulting from uncertainty.

Experiment

We preregistered the experiment on March 9, 2016, 15:03 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the Open Science Framework and data collection was launched later that day. Power analyses and all materials used in this experiment are available in the Online Supplemental Materials. Data set and code were shared on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/j4k9z/).

Participants and Procedures

A total of 346 American Amazon Mechanical Turk participants (Mage = 35.51, SDage = 11.65; 181 female) were recruited online using TurkPrime.com (Litman, Robinson, & Abberbock, 2016). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three between-subject conditions (deterministic universe, indeterministic universe, or an uncertain universe). All participants answered a scale measuring free will beliefs, read a scenario of the assigned condition’s hypothetical universe, and responded to questions evaluating intuitions.

Using the classic experimental philosophy paradigm, the scenario described a hypothetical universe, with the two original conditions for a fully deterministic universe and a universe which allows for human indeterminism (regarded as free will under the incompatibilist view of free will as incompatible with a fully deterministic universe). The original studies (Nichols, 2011; Nichols & Knobe, 2007; Sarkissian et al., 2010) showed both universes to the participants and asked to choose between the two or to make judgments about only one of those. We adjusted this paradigm to a between-subject design in which participants were only presented with one hypothetical universe to address potential contrasting effects.

The deterministic and indeterministic universes were described as follows:

  • Deterministic universe: Imagine a universe (Universe D) in which everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. This is true from the very beginning of the universe, so what happened in the beginning of the universe caused what happened next and so on right up until the present. For example, one day, John decided to have French Fries at lunch. Like everything else, this decision was completely caused by what happened before it. So, if everything in this universe was exactly the same up until John made his decision, then it had to happen that John would decide to have French Fries.

  • Indeterministic universe: Imagine a universe (Universe D) in which almost everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. The one exception is human decision-making. For example, one day, John decided to have French Fries at lunch. Since a person’s decision in this universe is not completely caused by what happened before it, even if everything in the universe was exactly the same up until John made his decision, it did not have to happen that John would decide to have French Fries. He could have decided to have something different.

Going beyond the two original descriptions, we sought to address the third extension discussed in the introduction and assess uncertainty. We therefore added a condition of an uncertain universe, in which it is unclear to agents whether human behavior is determined or undetermined:

  • Uncertain universe: Imagine a universe (Universe D) in which it is possible that everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. But in this universe, it is unclear whether human action follows this rule or if it is an exception to this rule. For example, one day, John decided to have French Fries at lunch. In this universe, it is unclear whether John’s decision in this universe was or was not completely caused by what happened before it. Assuming everything in the universe was exactly the same up until John made his decision, it is unclear whether or not John could have decided to not have French Fries and whether he could have decided to have something different.

Following the scenarios, participants completed a manipulation check (see the Online Supplemental Materials) and answered attribution questions.

Measures

Belief in free will

To assess the interaction between folk beliefs and folk intuitions, we collected beliefs in free will. The belief in free will was measured using the 9-item Personal Agency and Free Will subscales of the Free Will and Determinism Scale (Rakos, Laurene, Skala, & Slane, 2008). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with statements related to believing in the existence of free will, such as “I have free will” and “I am in charge of my actions even when my life’s circumstances are difficult” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .93).

Intuitions

We supplemented the realism and moral responsibility intuitions used in the original experimental paradigm with questions about intuitions of happiness, learning, meaningfulness, human uniqueness, prosociality, and future orientation.

Realism

Two items measured the extent to which the hypothetical universe was perceived as similar to the real universe we live in—“How similar is Universe D to our own real universe?” (0 = not at all like our universe, 5 = exactly like our universe) and “To what extent does Universe D follow the same laws of nature as our own real universe?” (0 = completely different laws of nature, 5 = exactly the same laws of nature; α = .97).

Happiness

Two items measured intuitions related to the possibility of happiness in the hypothetical universe—“How happy do you think you can be if you were living in Universe D?” (0 = not at all happy, 5 = the happiest possible) and “In Universe D, to what extent is happiness possible?” (0 = happiness not at all possible, 5 = happiness very possible; α = .85).

Learning

Two items measured intuitions related to the possibility of individual learning in the described universe—“In Universe D, to what extent is learning possible?” (0 = learning not at all possible, 5 = learning very possible) and “In Universe D, does learning something mean anything?” (0 = learning something is meaningless, 5 = learning something is very meaningful; α = .87).

Meaningfulness

Four items measured intuitions related to the meaningfulness of individuals’ actions in the hypothetical universe—“How meaningful do you think life would be for people living in Universe D?” (0 = without any meaning, 5 = very meaningful), “How purposeful (filled with purpose) do you think life would be for people living in Universe D?” (0 = without any purpose, 5 = very purposeful), “In Universe D, human action is more meaningful (has unique meaning) than that of other animals,” and “In Universe D, human action is more purposeful (has a sense of purpose) than that of other animals” (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = .80).

Uniqueness

Three items measured the extent to which human behavior is perceived as unique—“In Universe D, humans are just like any other object in the universe” (reversed), “In Universe D, humans operate under different natural laws than all other objects,” and “In Universe D, humans possess unique attributes that make them different from all other elements of nature” (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = .73).

Prosociality

Two items measured perceptions of human behavior in the hypothetical universe as either self-centered or prosocial. Items included “In your opinion, would people living in Universe D be more prosocial or more self-centered?” (0 = extremely self-centered, 5 = extremely prosocial) and “In your opinion, would people living in Universe D prefer to promote their own goals or social goals” (0 = only own goals, 5 = only social goals; α = .84).

Future orientation

A single item measured whether past or future was perceived as more important in the hypothetical universe—“In Universe D, which would be more important—past or the future?” (0 = past would be more important, 5 = future would be more important).

Moral responsibility

Two items measured intuitions of moral responsibility in the hypothetical universe—“Should people living in Universe D be held morally responsible for their negative actions?” (0 = people should not be held accountable for their actions, 5 = people should definitely be held responsible for their actions) and “If someone living in Universe D committed a crime, this person should pay for the crime committed” (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = .91).

Results

The means and standard deviations of all dependent variables for each condition are detailed in Table 1 and plotted in Figure 1, and the overall means and standard deviations for the entire sample and the correlations between the dependent variables and scale reliabilities are detailed in Table 2. An analysis of variance showed that all dependent variables were affected by the experimental manipulation describing different hypothetical universes, and the results are detailed in Table 3 (all F > 6.75, p ≤ .001; .22 ≥ ηp2 ≥ .04).

Table 1.

Means and SDs for All Conditions.

Universe Deterministic Indeterministic Uncertain
Intuitions M SD M SD M SD
Realism 1.80 1.51 3.45 1.25 2.87 1.47
Happiness 2.14 1.41 3.69 1.06 3.24 1.18
Learning 2.51 1.49 4.00 1.09 3.55 1.28
Meaningfulness 2.27 1.24 3.58 0.83 2.94 1.04
Uniqueness 2.45 1.43 3.39 1.03 2.70 0.98
Prosociality 2.05 1.29 2.60 0.97 2.46 1.13
Future orientation 1.04 1.45 2.82 1.73 2.11 1.62
Moral responsibility 2.35 1.69 3.77 0.97 3.13 1.32
Open in a new tab

Note. Indeterministic universe: n = 108, deterministic universe: n = 111, and uncertain universe: n = 112; scales are between 0 and 5. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Plot of intuitions for the three conditions—deterministic versus indeterministic versus uncertain universe. Scales are between 0 and 5. Error bars indicate ±1 Standard Error Mean (SEM).

Table 2.

Means, SDs, αs, and Correlations Between Intuitions.

Intuitions M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Realism 2.70 1.57 (.97)
2. Happiness 3.02 1.38 .73 (.85)
3. Learning 3.35 1.44 .64 .78 (.87)
4. Meaningfulness 2.92 1.17 .57 .69 .69 (.80)
5. Uniqueness 2.84 1.23 .15 .19** .20 .55 (.73)
6. Prosociality 2.37 1.16 .26 .31 .29 .31 .08ns (.84)
7. Future orientation 1.98 1.76 .51 .50 .44 .49 .17** .24 (—)
8. Moral responsibility 3.08 1.48 .52 .57 .59 .58 .33 .17** .42 (.91)
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 331. αs for all measures are reported on the diagonal. All correlations were p < .001 unless indicated otherwise. All intuitions are on a scale of 0–5. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; ns = not significant.

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. nsp > .05.

Table 3.

Analysis of Variance for Differences Between Conditions for All Dependent Variables.

Intuitions F p ηp2
Realism 38.50 <.001 .19
Happiness 45.97 <.001 .22
Learning 38.16 <.001 .19
Meaningfulness 42.27 <.001 .21
Uniqueness 19.16 <.001 .11
Prosociality 6.75 =.001 .04
Future orientation 34.51 <.001 .17
Moral responsibility 29.79 <.001 .15
Open in a new tab

Note. All analyses of df were (2, 328).

We ran a set of independent sample t tests contrasting the different experimental conditions, summarized in Table 4. We found that participants in the deterministic universe condition rated all intuitions as lower than the participants in the indeterministic universe (all p < .001, from d = .48 for prosociality to d = 1.24 for happiness and meaningfulness). There were no significant differences between the deterministic and the uncertain conditions in uniqueness (p = .132, d = .20) and no significant differences between the indeterministic and the uncertain conditions in prosociality (p = .320, d = .13), but in all other intuitions, participants in the uncertain universe rated intuitions as lower than participants in the indeterministic universe condition (p < .01 and d = .38 to d = .69) and higher than the deterministic universe (all with p < .001, and from d = .33 for learning to d = .84 for uniqueness).

Table 4.

Independent Sample t Tests Contrasting the Deterministic, Free Will, and Unknown Conditions.

Dependent Variable t df p MD LCI UCI d
Deterministic universe versus indeterministic universe
 Realism −8.85 211.67 .000 −1.65 −2.02 −1.28 −1.20
 Happiness −9.16 203.84 .000 −1.54 −1.87 −1.21 −1.24
 Learning −8.46 201.25 .000 −1.49 −1.84 −1.14 −1.14
 Meaningfulness −9.18 192.96 .000 −1.30 −1.58 −1.02 −1.24
 Uniqueness −5.60 199.38 .000 −0.94 −1.27 −0.61 −0.76
 Prosociality −3.54 204.27 .000 −0.54 −0.85 −0.24 −0.48
 Future orientation −8.28 208.67 .000 −1.79 −2.21 −1.36 −1.12
 Moral  responsibility −7.63 175.55 .000 −1.42 −1.78 −1.05 −1.02
Deterministic universe versus uncertain universe
 Realism −5.36 221.00 .000 −1.07 −1.46 −0.68 −0.72
 Happiness −6.27 213.46 .000 −1.09 −1.44 −0.75 −0.84
 Learning −5.59 221.00 .000 −1.04 −1.41 −0.67 −0.75
 Meaningfulness −4.35 221.00 .000 −0.67 −0.97 −0.36 −0.58
 Uniqueness −1.51 193.78 .132 −0.25 −0.57  0.08 −0.20
 Prosociality −2.47 221.00 .014 −0.40 −0.72 −0.08 −0.33
 Future orientation −5.19 218.70 .000 −1.07 −1.48 −0.66 −0.70
 Moral  responsibility −3.85 207.45 .000 −0.78 −1.18 −0.38 −0.52
Indeterministic universe versus uncertain universe
 Realism 3.17 218.00 .002 0.58 0.22 0.95 0.43
 Happiness 2.97 218.00 .003 0.45 0.15 0.75 0.40
 Learning 2.83 214.83 .005 0.45 0.14 0.77 0.38
 Meaningfulness 5.06 211.05 .000 0.64 0.39 0.89 0.68
 Uniqueness 5.13 218.00 .000 0.69 0.43 0.96 0.69
 Prosociality 1.00 218.00 .320 0.14 −0.14 0.42 0.13
 Future orientation 3.17 218.00 .002 0.72 0.27 1.16 0.43
 Moral responsibility 4.09 203.60 .000 0.63 0.33 0.94 0.55
Open in a new tab

Note. Indeterministic universe: N = 108, deterministic universe: N = 111, and uncertain universe: N = 112; LCI = lower confidence intervals 95%; UCI = upper confidence intervals 95%; d = Cohen’s d.

We proceeded to examine whether individual differences in the endorsement of the belief in free will would predict differences in intuitions for the deterministic and indeterministic universes. The analyses of covariance of the interaction between the deterministic versus the indeterministic experimental conditions and the belief in free will for all intuitions are summarized in Table 5. There was a main effect positive relationship between belief in free will and intuitions of realism and uniqueness, with a significant interaction on intuitions of realism, happiness, and learning. The interactions are plotted in Figure 2. On these three significant intuitions interactions, the differences in intuitions between the indeterministic and deterministic universes were higher for those high on the belief in free will compared to those low on the belief in free will. On realism, those low on the belief in free will did not differ from those high on the belief in free will in rating the realism of the indeterministic universe, but they did differ in perceiving a fully deterministic universe as more realistic.

Table 5.

Interactions Between the Deterministic Versus Indeterministic Experimental Conditions and Belief in Free Will.

Intuitions Factor Realism Happiness Learning
F p ηp2 F p ηp2 F p ηp2
Experimental condition 83.55 .000 .28 85.23 .000 .28 71.67 .000 .25
Belief in free will 4.19 .042 .02 1.11 .293 .01 0.02 .898 .00
Interaction 9.56 .002 .04 7.67 .006 .03 3.97 .048 .02
Meaningfulness Uniqueness Prosociality
Intuitions Factor F p ηp2 F p ηp2 F p ηp2
Experimental condition 83.60 .000 .28 32.77 .000 .13 12.47 .001 .06
Belief in free will 2.73 .100 .01 11.43 .001 .05 1.46 .229 .01
Interaction 0.03 .872 .00 0.84 .361 .00 0.51 .476 .00
Future Orientation  Moral Responsibility
Intuitions Factor F p ηp2 F p ηp2
Experimental condition 68.29 .000 .24 57.72 .000 .22
Belief in free will 0.00 .973 .00 3.37 .068 .02
Interaction 0.28 .598 .00 .93 .337 .00
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded values indicate a significant interaction between the experimental condition (deterministic vs. indeterministic universes) and belief in free will. Indeterministic universe: N = 108 and deterministic universe: N = 111.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The graphs show the interactions between free will beliefs and ratings of deterministic and indeterministic universes for realism, happiness, and learning. The interactions for the other intuitions were not significant (p > .05) and therefore not included.

Discussion

We set out to examine three research questions, and below we review each of those questions and related findings. A summary of the findings is provided in Table 6.

Table 6.

Summary of Findings.

Predictions/Research Questions Findings Notes
Interaction between beliefs and realism intuitions Significant interaction between free will beliefs and the contrast between indeterministic and deterministic universes Preregistered. However, intuitions not reversed, weaker effect than expected
Higher moral accountability in the indeterministic universe Supported. Higher than the uncertain universe and the deterministic universe. Deterministic universe lower than the uncertain universe Preregistered. Replication for the indeterministic versus deterministic universe contrast in the literature
Higher uniqueness, happiness, and meaningfulness in the indeterministic universe Supported. Higher than the uncertain universe and deterministic universe. Deterministic universe lower than the uncertain universe Preregistered. In support of findings in social–psychology linking free will beliefs and related outcomes
Higher learning and meaningfulness intuitions in the indeterministic universe Supported In support of findings in social–psychology linking free will beliefs and related outcomes
Higher or lower prosociality in the indeterministic universe? Higher prosociality in the indeterministic universe, compared to the other conditions Exploratory. In support of the Baumeister-ian view of the sociofunctional role of free will
Are intuitions for the indeterministic and deterministic universes different than for an uncertain universe? Significant differences for all intuitions: indeterministic universe highest, deterministic lowest, uncertain in between Exploratory. Conclusion: certainty about indeterminism and related intuitions
Do free will beliefs predict differences in intuitions? Significant interactions only for happiness and learning for the indeterministic versus deterministic universe contrasts Exploratory. Conclusion: beliefs had no to weak effects over intuitions
Open in a new tab

The first research question was whether the findings regarding the link between the belief in free will and outcomes would be reflected in laypersons’ intuitions regarding free will. Based on previous social psychology literature linking the belief in free will to prosociality, future orientation, learning, meaning, and well-being, we expected that laypersons would more strongly associate these with an indeterministic universe compared to a fully deterministic universe in the experimental philosophy paradigm. The findings provide very strong support for these hypotheses. People have the overall intuition that an indeterministic universe (free will under the incompatibilist view) allows for better learning, a more meaningful, and happier life, in which people are more prosocial (less selfish) and where the future is more important than the past. The intuitions of prosociality are especially revealing, since the belief in free will has been previously linked to both prosocial (Baumeister et al., 2009; Crescioni et al., 2016) and self-promoting (Alquist et al., 2013; Feldman, Chandrashekar, et al., 2016; Stillman et al., 2010) behaviors (see discussion in Feldman, 2017). Our findings are in support of laypersons’ intuitions following the Baumeister-ian view that “free will is for following rules” (Baumeister, 2008a, 2008b; Baumeister, Crescioni, & Alquist, 2011; Baumeister & Monroe, 2014; Monroe, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2016) facilitating sociofunctioning coexistence with others rather than the pursuit of selfish needs regardless of others. We also replicated previous findings in experimental philosophy using a similar experimental paradigm showing that people associate higher moral responsibility with an indeterministic universe than they do to a deterministic universe, lending support to the overall validity of these findings. Put together, the findings show a wide array of broad intuitions associated with indeterminism, which paves the way for future studies in experimental philosophy to build on findings in social psychology about free will beliefs to explore laypersons’ philosophical understanding of other theoretically important factors.

The second research question was whether individual differences in free will beliefs would predict differences in free will–related intuitions. Belief in free will predicted perceiving humans as more unique, with a marginal effect for perceiving people as more morally responsibility (in line with Monroe, Brady, & Malle, 2017). All other intuitions were not directly associated with individual differences in believing in free will. We therefore conclude that beliefs in free will had little direct impact on the examined intuitions.

Examining the relationship between the belief in free will and intuitions for the indeterministic versus deterministic hypothetical universes, we found that belief in free will strengthened perceived differences in intuitions between the two universes for realism, happiness, and learning. Those who believed in free will perceived greater differences in learning and happiness between the two universes and found the free will universe to be more realistic than the deterministic universe. Yet, regardless of individual free will beliefs, people perceived the indeterministic universe to be more realistic than the deterministic world, only that those who believe in free will did so to a larger extent. This effect is revealing, because this means that it is not that people who are lower on free will beliefs reject free will indeterminism completely. Quite the contrary, even those who were relatively lower on belief in free will perceived an indeterministic universe as more realistic, only that they perceived a deterministic universe as slightly more likely and an indeterministic universe as slightly less likely. This finding may provide an explanation as to why manipulating free will beliefs did not always affect cognition and behavior in the expected way (Lynn, Muhle-Karbe, Aarts, & Brass, 2014; Monroe et al., 2017; Schooler, Nadelhoffer, Nahmias, & Vohs, 2014). We consider this an interesting example of the way by which the experimental philosophy paradigm examining intuitions provides new insights to social psychology’s assessment of the belief in free will and its consequences.

Lastly, we set out to tease apart free will and determinism intuitions from mere uncertainty about the nature of the universe. The findings clearly show that people perceive the indeterministic universe as the most realistic, more so than they do the uncertain universe in which it is unclear whether the universe is fully deterministic or not. This is an important point which highlights that people are convinced that our universe allows for human indeterminism or free will under the incompatibilist philosophical view. The other intuitions we assessed may suggest a possible explanation. It is not only that an uncertain world is less likely but also that the uncertain universe world is associated with less meaning, well-being, learning, and moral responsibility. These intuitions, regardless of beliefs, could be the factors driving the human inclination to perceive human indeterminism (or free will), as is suggested by the wide literature regarding the ‘illusion of free will’ (Wegner, 2003, 2004; Wegner & Wheatley, 1999).

Conclusion

We demonstrated new links between the experimental philosophy paradigm assessing intuitions and the social psychology paradigm examining free will beliefs to offer new insights regarding the way people think about free will and determinism. People intuitively perceive the world as allowing for human indeterminism (or incompatibilist free will), and they do so with certainty. They associate the realistic indeterministic universe with more meaning, well-being, prosocial, future-oriented, and morally responsibility behavior, regardless of their own beliefs in free will, and their belief in free will serves to enhance perceiving free will in the world and its associated outcomes of happiness and learning. We call for more studies linking the experimental philosophy and social psychology paradigms to broaden our understanding of laypersons’ intuitions and beliefs regarding abstract philosophical notions like free will and determinism.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, SPPS713254_suppl_mat - Laypersons’ Beliefs and Intuitions About Free Will and Determinism: New Insights Linking the Social Psychology and Experimental Philosophy Paradigms
Click here for additional data file. (32.1KB, docx)

Supplemental Material, SPPS713254_suppl_mat for Laypersons’ Beliefs and Intuitions About Free Will and Determinism: New Insights Linking the Social Psychology and Experimental Philosophy Paradigms by Gilad Feldman, and Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Author Biographies

Gilad Feldman is a postdoctoral research fellow with the work and social psychology department at Maastricht University. His research focuses on free will lay beliefs and cognition, personal values, morality, and judgment/decision-making.

Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar is a PhD candidate with the management department at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His research focuses on social status, lay beliefs, and morality.

Handling Editor: Jesse Graham

Footnotes

Authors’ Note: Gilad Feldman designed and conducted the experiment and wrote the manuscript. Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar conducted data analyses, wrote the methods and results, provided feedback, and approved the final draft for submission.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material: The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

References

  1. Alquist J. L., Ainsworth S. E., Baumeister R. F. (2013). Determined to conform: Disbelief in free will increases conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 80–86. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alquist J. L., Ainsworth S. E., Baumeister R. F., Daly M., Stillman T. F. (2015). The making of might-have-beens effects of free will belief on counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 268–283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baumeister R. F. (2008. a). Free will, consciousness, and cultural animals In Are We Free (pp. 65–85). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumeister R. F. (2008. b). Free will in scientific psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 14–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumeister R. F., Bauer I. M., Lloyd S. A. (2010). Choice, free will, and religion. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 67. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumeister R. F., Brewer L. E. (2012). Believing versus disbelieving in free will: Correlates and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 736–745. [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumeister R. F., Crescioni A. W., Alquist J. L. (2011). Free will as advanced action control for human social life and culture. Neuroethics, 4, 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Baumeister R. F., Masicampo E. J., DeWall C. N. (2009). Prosocial benefits of feeling free: Disbelief in free will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 260–268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Baumeister R. F., Monroe A. E. (2014). Chapter one-recent research on free will: Conceptualizations, beliefs, and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 1–52. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bear A., Knobe J. (2016). What do people find incompatible with causal determinism? Cognitive Science, 40, 2025–2049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergner R. M., Ramon A. (2013). Some implications of beliefs in altruism, free will, and nonreductionism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 598–618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brembs B. (2011). Towards a scientific concept of free will as a biological trait: Spontaneous actions and decision-making in invertebrates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278, 930–939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carey J. M., Paulhus D. L. (2013). Worldview implications of believing in free will and/or determinism: Politics, morality, and punitiveness. Journal of Personality, 81, 130–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark C. J., Baumeister R. F., Ditto P. H. (2017). Making punishment palatable: Belief in free will alleviates punitive distress. Consciousness and Cognition, 51, 193–211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark C. J., Luguri J. B., Ditto P. H., Knobe J., Shariff A. F., Baumeister R. F. (2014). Free to punish: A motivated account of free will belief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cokely E. T., Feltz A. (2009). Individual differences, judgment biases, and theory-of-mind: Deconstructing the intentional action side effect asymmetry. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
  17. Crescioni A. W., Baumeister R. F., Ainsworth S. E., Ent M., Lambert N. M. (2016). Subjective correlates and consequences of belief in free will. Philosophical Psychology, 29, 41–63. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cushman F., Mele A. (2008). Intentional action: Two-and-a-half folk concepts? In Knobe J., Nichols S. (Eds.), Experimental Philosophy (pp. 171–188). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dennett D. C. (2003). The self as a responding—and responsible—artifact. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1001, 39–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Feldman G. (2017). Making sense of agency: Belief in free will as a unique and important construct. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  21. Feldman G., Baumeister R. F., Wong K. F. E. (2014). Free will is about choosing: The link between choice and the belief in free will. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 239–245. [Google Scholar]
  22. Feldman G., Chandrashekar S. P., Wong K. F. E. (2016). The freedom to excel: Belief in free will predicts better academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 377–383. [Google Scholar]
  23. Feldman G., Wong K. F. E., Baumeister R. F. (2016). Bad is freer than good: Positive–negative asymmetry in attributions of free will. Consciousness and Cognition, 42, 26–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Feltz A., Cokely E. T. (2007). An anomaly in intentional action ascriptions: More evidence of folk diversity. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society (p. 1748). [Google Scholar]
  25. Feltz A., Cokely E. T. (2008). The fragmented folk: More evidence of stable individual differences in moral judgments and folk intuitions. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1771–1776). [Google Scholar]
  26. Feltz A., Cokely E. T. (2009). Do judgments about freedom and responsibility depend on who you are? Personality differences in intuitions about compatibilism and incompatibilism. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 342–350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Feltz A., Cokely E. T., Nadelhoffer T. (2009). Natural compatibilism versus natural incompatibilism: Back to the drawing board. Mind & Language, 24, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  28. Feltz A., Cova F. (2014). Moral responsibility and free will: A meta-analysis. Consciousness and Cognition, 30, 234–246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Guglielmo S., Monroe A. E., Malle B. F. (2009). At the heart of morality lies folk psychology. Inquiry, 52, 449–466. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kant I. (1788/1997). In Gregor Mary J. (Ed. & Trans.), Critique of practical reason. [Google Scholar]
  31. Knobe J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190–194. [Google Scholar]
  32. Knobe J., Buckwalter W., Nichols S., Robbins P., Sarkissian H., Sommers T. (2012). Experimental philosophy. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 81–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lau S., Hiemisch A., Baumeister R. F. (2015). The experience of freedom in decisions—Questioning philosophical beliefs in favor of psychological determinants. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 30–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Leotti L. A., Iyengar S. S., Ochsner K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 457–463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Li C., Wang S., Zhao Y., Kong F., Li J. (2016). The freedom to pursue happiness: Belief in free will predicts life satisfaction and positive affect among Chinese adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Litman L., Robinson J., Abberbock T. (2016). TurkPrime. com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 433–442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lynn M. T., Muhle-Karbe P. S., Aarts H., Brass M. (2014). Priming determinist beliefs diminishes implicit (but not explicit) components of self-agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. MacKenzie M. J., Vohs K. D., Baumeister R. F. (2014). You didn’t have to do that: Belief in free will promotes gratitude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1423–1434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Malle B. F., Guglielmo S., Monroe A. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 147–186. [Google Scholar]
  40. Monroe A. E., Brady G. L., Malle B. F. (2017). This isn’t the free will worth looking for: General free will beliefs do not influence moral judgments, agent-specific choice ascriptions do. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 191–199. [Google Scholar]
  41. Monroe A. E., Dillon K. D., Malle B. F. (2014). Bringing free will down to Earth: People’s psychological concept of free will and its role in moral judgment. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 100–108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Monroe A. E., Malle B. F. (2010). From uncaused will to conscious choice: The need to study, not speculate about people’s folk concept of free will. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 211–224. [Google Scholar]
  43. Monroe A. E., Vohs K. D., Baumeister R. F. (2016). Free will evolved for morality and culture. The Social Psychology of Good and Evil, 41, 268–283. [Google Scholar]
  44. Moynihan A. B., Igou E. R., van Tilburg W. A. (2017). Free, connected, and meaningful: Free will beliefs promote meaningfulness through belongingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 54–65. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nadelhoffer T., Kvaran T., Nahmias E. (2009). Temperament and intuition: A commentary on Feltz and Cokely. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 351–355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nahmias E., Coates D. J., Kvaran T. (2007). Free will, moral responsibility, and mechanism: Experiments on folk intuitions. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31, 214–242. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nichols S. (2011). Experimental philosophy and the problem of free will. Science, 331, 1401–1403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Nichols S., Knobe J. (2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: The cognitive science of folk intuitions. Nous, 41, 663–685. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nichols S., Ulatowski J. (2007). Intuitions and individual differences: The Knobe effect revisited. Mind & Language, 22, 346–365. [Google Scholar]
  50. Paulhus D. L., Carey J. M. (2011). The FAD–Plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 96–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Phillips J., Knobe J. (2009). Moral judgments and intuitions about freedom. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 30–36. [Google Scholar]
  52. Pronin E., Kugler M. B. (2010). People believe they have more free will than others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 22469–22474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rakos R. F., Laurene K. R., Skala S., Slane S. (2008). Belief in free will: Measurement and conceptualization innovations. Behavior and Social Issues, 17, 20. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rose D., Nichols S. (2013). The lesson of bypassing. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4, 599–619. [Google Scholar]
  55. Roskies A. L., Nichols S. (2008). Bringing moral responsibility down to earth. The Journal of Philosophy, 105, 371–388. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sarkissian H., Chatterjee A., De Brigard F., Knobe J., Nichols S., Sirker S. (2010). Is belief in free will a cultural universal? Mind & Language, 25, 346–358. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schooler J., Nadelhoffer T., Nahmias E., Vohs K. D. (2014). Measuring and manipulating beliefs and behaviors associated with free will. In Mele A. R. (Ed.), Surrounding Free Will: Philosophy, Psychology, Neuroscience (pp. 72–94). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  58. Schulz E., Cokely E. T., Feltz A. (2011). Persistent bias in expert judgments about free will and moral responsibility: A test of the expertise defense. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1722–1731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Seligman M. E., Railton P., Baumeister R. F., Sripada C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 119–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Seto E., Hicks J. A., Davis W. E., Smallman R. (2015). Free will, counterfactual reflection, and the meaningfulness of life events. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 243–250. [Google Scholar]
  61. Shariff A. F., Greene J. D., Karremans J. C., Luguri J. B., Clark C. J., Schooler J. W.…Vohs K. D. (2014). Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution. Psychological Science, 25, 1563–1570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Stillman T. F., Baumeister R. F. (2010). Guilty, free, and wise: Belief in free will facilitates learning from self-conscious emotions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 951–960. [Google Scholar]
  63. Stillman T. F., Baumeister R. F., Mele A. R. (2011). Free will in everyday life: Autobiographical accounts of free and unfree actions. Philosophical Psychology, 24, 381–394. [Google Scholar]
  64. Stillman T. F., Baumeister R. F., Vohs K. D., Lambert N. M., Fincham F. D., Brewer L. E. (2010). Personal philosophy and personnel achievement: Belief in free will predicts better job performance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  65. Vohs K. D., Schooler J. W. (2008). The value of believing in free will encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating. Psychological Science, 19, 49–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wegner D. M. (2003). The mind’s best trick: How we experience conscious will. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 65–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wegner D. M. (2004). Précis of the illusion of conscious will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 649–659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wegner D. M., Wheatley T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54, 480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material, SPPS713254_suppl_mat - Laypersons’ Beliefs and Intuitions About Free Will and Determinism: New Insights Linking the Social Psychology and Experimental Philosophy Paradigms
Click here for additional data file. (32.1KB, docx)

Supplemental Material, SPPS713254_suppl_mat for Laypersons’ Beliefs and Intuitions About Free Will and Determinism: New Insights Linking the Social Psychology and Experimental Philosophy Paradigms by Gilad Feldman, and Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Articles from Social Psychological and Personality Science are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES