Distinguishing free will from moral responsibility when measuring free will beliefs: The FWS-II

ABSTRACT

Previous research suggests that free will beliefs and moral responsibility beliefs are strongly linked, yet ultimately distinct. Unfortunately, the most common measure of free will beliefs, the free will subscale (FWS) of the Free Will and Determinism Plus, seems to confound free will beliefs and moral responsibility beliefs. Thus, the present research (1,700 participants across two studies) details the development of a 2-factor FWS – the FWS-II – that divides the FWS into a free will subscale and a moral responsibility subscale. The FWS-II showed good fit compared to standard fit thresholds and superior fit compared to the original FWS. The moral responsibility subscale was moderately correlated with general punitive attitudes and specific punitive assignments, even when controlling for the free will subscale. Conversely, the free will subscale was moderately correlated with conservativism and religiosity, even when controlling for the moral responsibility subscale. These results provide evidence that the FWS is better suited – psychometrically, theoretically, and practically – as a 2-factor measure of free will beliefs and moral responsibility beliefs than as a 1-factor measure of free will beliefs.

KEYWORDS:

• Free will
• moral responsibility
• retributivism
• consequentialism
• conservativism
• religiosity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Though appreciable, correlations between the free will subscale and the moral responsibility subscale represent factor correlations rather than scale correlations and are equivalent to disattenuated scale correlations.

2. Item 7 was excluded from analysis because its factor loading was lower than that of item 3 (i.e., the item with which item 7 was redundant; λ = .63 and .72, for item 7 and item 3, respectively); indeed, item 7 had the lowest factor loading out of all seven FWS items, a trend that persists across populations (e.g., Caspar et al., 2017).

3. Replicating Study 1, the FWS-II showed excellent fit per CFI and adequate fit per RMSEA (χ² (8) = 66.44, p < .001; CFI =.99; RMSEA =.09, 90% CI [.07, .11], and better fit than the 1-factor FWS (χ² (14) = 604.70, p < .001; CFI =.92; RMSEA =.21, 90% CI [.20, .23]).

4. Retributivism was significantly correlated with assignments of punishment (r = .35, p < .001), but consequentialism was not significantly correlated with assignments of punishment (r = .02, p = .55).

5. The FWS-II showed better model fit with item 7 excluded; thus, researchers should consider this item adjustment (i.e., excluding item 7 from analysis) when using the FWS-II.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alec J. Stinnett

Alec J. Stinnett is a PhD candidate in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Texas Tech University.

Jordan E. Rodriguez

Jordan L. Rodriguez is a PhD candidate in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Texas Tech University.

Andrew K. Littlefield

Andrew K. Littlefield is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Texas Tech University.

Jessica L. Alquist

Jessica L. Alquist is an Associate Professor and the Experimental Program Director in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Texas Tech University.