Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28282393›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Free to help? An experiment on free will belief and altruism.

Job Harms, Kellie Liket, John Protzko, Vera Schölmerich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Are Free Will Believers Nicer People? (Four Studies Suggest Not).Social psychological and personality science · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Job HarmsDepartment of Economics, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4455-1598
Kellie LiketDepartment of Economics, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
John ProtzkoDepartment of Psychology and Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Vera SchölmerichDepartment of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University College, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How does belief in free will affect altruistic behavior? In an online experiment we undermine subjects' belief in free will through a priming task. Subjects subsequently conduct a series of binary dictator games in which they can distribute money between themselves and a charity that supports low-income people in developing countries. In each decision task, subjects choose between two different distributions, one of which is more generous towards the charity. In contrast to previous experiments that report a negative effect of undermining free will on honest behavior and self-reported willingness to help, we find an insignificant average treatment effect. However, we do find that our treatment reduces charitable giving among non-religious subjects, but not among religious subjects. This could be explained by our finding that religious subjects associate more strongly with social norms that prescribe helping the poor, and might therefore be less sensitive to the effect of reduced belief in free will. Taken together, these findings indicate that the effects of free will belief on prosocial behavior are more nuanced than previously suggested.

Indexed as

AltruismAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersonal AutonomyReligionSocial BehaviorSocial Class

Identifiers

PMID28282393
PMCPMC5345790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.