Some claim that recent advances in neuroscience will revolutionize the way we think about human nature and legal culpability. Empirical support for this proposition is mixed. Two highly-cited empirical studies found that irrelevant neuroscientific explanations and neuroimages were highly persuasive to laypersons. However, attempts to replicate these effects have largely been unsuccessful. Two separate experiments tested the hypothesis that neuroscience is susceptible to motivated reasoning, which refers to the tendency to selectively credit or discredit information in a manner that reinforces preexisting beliefs. Participants read a newspaper article about a cutting-edge neuroscience study. Consistent with the hypothesis, participants deemed the hypothetical study sound and the neuroscience persuasive when the outcome of the study was congruent with their prior beliefs, but gave the identical study and neuroscience negative evaluations when it frustrated their beliefs. Neuroscience, it appears, is subject to the same sort of cognitive dynamics as other types of scientific evidence. These findings qualify claims that neuroscience will play a qualitatively different role in the way in which it shapes people’s beliefs and informs issues of social policy.

Research has shown that people ascribe more responsibility to morally bad actions than both morally good and neutral ones, suggesting that people do not attribute responsibility to morally good actions. The present work demonstrates that this is not so: People ascribe more free will to morally good than neutral actions (Studies 1a-1b, Mini Meta). Studies 2a-2b distinguished the underlying motives for ascribing freedom to morally good and bad actions. Free will ascriptions for immoral actions were driven predominantly by affective responses (i.e., punitive desires, moral outrage, and perceived severity of the crime). Free will judgments for morally good actions were similarly driven by affective responses (i.e., reward desires, moral uplift, and perceived generosity), but also more pragmatic considerations (perceived utility of reward, counternormativity of the action, and required willpower). Morally good actions may be more carefully considered, leading to generally weaker, but more contextually sensitive free will judgments.

Prospective donors are often sensitive to the amount of overhead in charitable fundraising. The present studies examine how differences in one’s personal commitment to a cause moderate the relative focus on overhead versus outcomes in charitable fundraising. Three experiments find that donors who are more committed to the cause are, in fact, accepting of higher levels of overhead. Experiment 1 demonstrates that people are willing to accept a higher level of overhead for causes that are more (vs. less) important to them. Experiment 2 provides process evidence by showing that perceptions of cause importance generally influence how people evaluate the intentions behind charitable fundraising versus its outcomes. Experiment 3 directly manipulates cause importance and demonstrates a downstream effect on actual donations. Together, these studies suggest a more general framework whereby differences in personal commitment change the relative focus on the intentions behind pro-social behavior versus the outcomes achieved.

No abstract