People Reject Free Money and Cheap Deals Because They Infer Phantom Costs.

If money is good, then shouldn't more money always be better? Perhaps not. Traditional economic theories suggest that money is an ever-increasing incentivizer. If someone will accept a job for US$20/hr, they should be more likely to accept the same job for US$30/hr and especially for US$250/hr. However, 10 preregistered, high-powered studies (N = 4,205, in the United States and Iran) reveal how increasing incentives can backfire. Overly generous offers lead people to infer "phantom costs" that make them less likely to accept high job wages, cheap plane fares, and free money. We present a theory for understanding when and why people imagine these hidden drawbacks and show how phantom costs drive judgments, impact behavior, and intersect with individual differences. Phantom costs change how we should think about "economic rationality." Economic exchanges are not merely about money, but instead are social interactions between people trying to perceive (and deceive) each others' minds.

Direct and indirect freedom in addiction: Folk free will and blame judgments are sensitive to the choice history of drug users.

People view addiction as a source of diminished free will and moral responsibility. Yet, people are also sensitive to the personal histories of moral actors, including, perhaps, the way by which people became addicted. Across two studies (N = 806), we compare people's moral intuitions about cases in which the actor becomes addicted by force or by choice. We find that perceptions of reduced free will partially mediate an association between choice (vs. no choice) in addiction and moral blame for a bad act (Study 1). We replicate this pattern and show that blame judgments are stronger when the bad act is related (vs. unrelated) to obtaining the addictive substance (Study 2). Our work is novel in demonstrating that lay people evince relatively nuanced intuitions about the role of free will in addiction and morality-they track direct and indirect paths to choices when making free will and blame judgments.

Ordinary people think free will is a lack of constraint, not the presence of a soul.

Four experiments supported the hypothesis that ordinary people understand free will as meaning unconstrained choice, not having a soul. People consistently rated free will as being high unless reduced by internal constraints (i.e., things that impaired people's mental abilities to make choices) or external constraints (i.e., situations that hampered people's abilities to choose and act as they desired). Scientific paradigms that have been argued to disprove free will were seen as reducing, but usually not eliminating free will, and the reductions were because of constrained conscious choice. We replicated findings that a minority of people think lacking a soul reduces free will. These reductions in perceived free will were fully explained by reductions in people's perceived abilities to make conscious decisions. Thus, some people do think you need a soul to have free will-but it is because they think you need a soul to make conscious decisions.

To Be Immortal, Do Good or Evil.

Many people believe in immortality, but who is perceived to live on and how exactly do they live on? Seven studies reveal that good- and evil-doers are perceived to possess more immortality-albeit different kinds. Good-doers have "transcendent" immortality, with their souls persisting beyond space and time; evil-doers have "trapped" immortality, with their souls persisting on Earth, bound to a physical location. Studies 1 to 4 reveal bidirectional links between perceptions of morality and type of immortality. Studies 5 to 7 reveal how these links explain paranormal perceptions. People generally tie paranormal events to evil spirits (Study 5), but this depends upon location: Evil spirits are perceived to haunt houses and dense forests, whereas good spirits are perceived in expansive locations such as mountaintops (Study 6). However, even good spirits may be seen as trapped on Earth given extenuating circumstances (Study 7). Materials include a scale for measuring trapped and transcendent immorality.

Ordinary people associate addiction with loss of free will.

INTRODUCTION: It is widely believed that addiction entails a loss of free will, even though this point is controversial among scholars. There is arguably a downside to this belief, in that addicts who believe they lack the free will to quit an addiction might therefore fail to quit an addiction. METHODS: A correlational study tested the relationship between belief in free will and addiction. Follow-up studies tested steps of a potential mechanism: 1) people think drugs undermine free will 2) people believe addiction undermines free will more when doing so serves the self 3) disbelief in free will leads people to perceive various temptations as more addictive. RESULTS: People with lower belief in free will were more likely to have a history of addiction to alcohol and other drugs, and also less likely to have successfully quit alcohol. People believe that drugs undermine free will, and they use this belief to self-servingly attribute less free will to their bad actions than to good ones. Low belief in free will also increases perceptions that things are addictive. CONCLUSIONS: Addiction is widely seen as loss of free will. The belief can be used in self-serving ways that may undermine people's efforts to quit.

Uses of self-regulation to facilitate and restrain addictive behavior.

We apply self-regulation theory to understand addictive behavior. Self-regulation and volition depend on a limited resource, and when that resource has been depleted, self-regulation becomes prone to fail. Moving beyond traditional models that have emphasized the relevance of self-regulation to quitting addiction, we propose that self-regulation is used both to facilitate and resist addictive behaviors. Self-regulation is often needed to overcome initial aversion to drugs and alcohol, as well as to maintain addictive usage patterns despite situational obstacles (e.g., illegality, erratic availability, family disapproval). Sustaining addiction also requires preventing use from spiraling out of control and interfering with other aspects of life. More generally, the automaticity and irresistibility of addictive responses may have been overrated, as indicated by how addictive behaviors respond rationally to incentives and other concerns. Self-regulation does facilitate quitting, and relapse may be especially likely when self-regulatory capabilities are depleted.

Implications of free will beliefs for basic theory and societal benefit: critique and implications for social psychology.

Greater belief in free will is associated with greater empathy towards the working poor, support for social mobility, greater desire for socio-economic equality, and less belief that poor people are fated to live in poverty. We found no sign that belief in free will led to prejudice or discrimination against poor people or undercut justice. These findings from an online survey flatly contradict the claims made by James Miles (2013). Belief in a just world did produce many of the patterns Miles attributed to belief in free will. We also question the reasoning and the strength of the purported evidence in his article, and we recommend that future writers on the topic should cultivate cautious, open-minded consideration of competing views. Miles' article is a useful reminder that to some writers, the topic of free will elicits strong emotional reactions.