Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We used the FAD-Plus to investigate the association of free will belief (FWB) with political orientation, moral attitudes, and punitiveness. Other goals included (a) confirming the independence of believing in free will and determinism and (b) contrasting scientific determinism with fatalistic determinism. METHOD: Three studies were conducted via online questionnaires. Studies 1 and 3 recruited undergraduate students: Study 1, N = 220, M(age) = 20.96; Study 3, N = 161, M(age) = 20.2. Study 2 participants were recruited from a broader community sample: N = 253, M(age) = 34.29. RESULTS: Studies 1 and 2 found that FWB is associated with traditional conservative attitudes, including authoritarianism, religiosity, and belief in a just world. Study 2 replicated this pattern but narrowed the religiosity link to the intrinsic style. In Study 3, FWB was associated with binding moral foundations and retributive punishment of hypothetical criminals. CONCLUSIONS: Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it