Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

It's easy to tell ourselves we're living in the world we want - one where Darwinian evolution drives competing technology platforms and capitalism pushes nations to maximize GDP regardless of externalities like carbon emissions. It can feel like evolution and competition are all there is. But what if that's not the whole story of evolution? On Your Undivided Attention, we speak with evolutionary theorist, author, and professor David Sloan Wilson about his work documenting where an enlightened game - one of cooperation rather than competition - is possible.

In this study we want to continue a research line from a Spanish PhD student. We want to analyze the role of feminist identification and threat perception in the proclivity to participate in collective actions (pro trans community, privilege questioning and reactionary), the mechanisms underlying these relationships, and the role of gender essentialism as a potential moderator. Moreover, in this work we want to experimentally test the role of different framings (cooperation-focus vs. conflict-focus) on the psychosocial mechanisms that lead to hostility or collaboration.

Matzav Podcast hosts Shadi Martini, Director of Humanitarian Relief and Regional Relations to the Multifaith Alliance for Syrian Refugees, to discuss the crisis in Syria and how it effects local views on Israel.Support the show

In commons, members' cooperation is essential to ensure a good functioning of the commons, and, for this reason, we need a deeper understanding of the psychological determinants of cooperative behaviours of individuals who are members of commons initiatives. In the current study, our aim is to test if the Dual Chamber Model of Collective Action (which includes social identity, morality, collective efficacy and perceived injustice, operationalized as anger, as predictors of collective action; Agostini & Van Zomeren, 2021 ) is also valid when applied to explain cooperation in commons, i.e. if cooperation in commons can be considered a particular form of collective action. We will test this model both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. We will take Swiss housing cooperatives as exemplifications of commons. In Switzerland, housing cooperatives arise in urban contexts as a response to the speculative, profit-oriented real-estate market. Their aim is to withdraw dwellings from the classical market, and to offer them at a more accessible price. They also focus on self-organization and participative management, so that residents of housing cooperatives can directly act on their neighbourhood, without the mediation of real-estate agencies. Housing cooperatives are a modern form of urban commons, since a community of users (the members of the cooperative) self-organizes around a shared resource (the building).

This study aims to examine whether exposing participants to a scientific argument that frames human behavior as the outcome of deterministic processes reduces their belief in free will and moral responsibility, while simultaneously strengthening their endorsement of scientific determinism. The study also investigates how this shift affects cooperative decision-making in a moral dilemma involving academic incentives. Prior research has shown that undermining belief in free will can lead to decreased prosocial behavior and increased selfishness or aggression. For instance, Baumeister et al. (2009) found that participants induced to disbelieve in free will were less willing to help others and more likely to behave aggressively. Similarly, Protzko et al. (2016) demonstrated that challenging belief in free will disrupts intuitive cooperation: participants who read texts that experimentally reduced free will belief were less cooperative in an economic game under time pressure, suggesting that disbelief may promote impulsive self-interest. A recent meta-analysis has confirmed that anti–free will manipulations reliably reduce belief in free will and increase belief in determinism; however, the evidence for consistent downstream behavioral effects remains weak and inconclusive (Genschow et al., 2022). This underscores the importance of identifying boundary conditions and examining whether specific individual differences—such as traits from the Dark Triad of personality, high persuadability, or social trust—moderate the behavioral impact of such manipulations, particularly in contexts involving moral decision-making. Building on this evidence, the present study investigates whether inducing doubt about the existence of free will and personal moral accountability affects individuals’ decisions to cooperate or defect in a time-pressured variant of the “Split or Steal” game from the British TV show Golden Balls. In the original format, two contestants engage in a strategic conversation where they attempt to build trust or deceive one another before simultaneously revealing their decision – “Split” or “Steal” – using two sealed golden balls. If both players choose “Split”, the prize is divided equally. If one chooses “Steal” while the other chooses “Split,” the one who steals takes the entire prize and the other gets nothing. If both choose “Steal,” both walk away empty-handed. In our adaptation, we excluded the negotiation phase present in the original format of the Golden Balls game to minimize the interval between the experimental manipulation and the behavioral task. This methodological choice was made to preserve the potential effectiveness of the manipulation, as the effects of belief manipulations targeting free will tend to fade over time (Genschow et al., 2022). Furthermore, the present adaptation does not involve a monetary prize, but rather academic bonus points as the perceived reward. All participants will be tested simultaneously in the same room and will be led to believe that, at the time of their decision between “Split” or “Steal”, they are competing for the bonus point they individually earned at the beginning of the session, combined with that of another participant in the room with whom they will supposedly be randomly paired at the end of the experiment. Conducting the task in a single session also eliminates the risk that participants who have already completed the study might disclose that the game is simulated, thereby preserving the credibility of the experimental setup. Participants will be undergraduate psychology students enrolled in the bachelor's degree program in Technological and Scientific Fundamentals of Cognitive Psychology (L-24) at Suor Orsola Benincasa University in Naples, Italy. The study will be conducted in Italian and will involve students taking part in a scheduled first-year written examination. The goal is to recruit at least 100 participants. Five days before the exam, when registration closes, eligible students will receive an email containing a Google Form through which they can confirm their willingness to participate, and provide informed consent and demographic information (age and gender). They will be informed that their partecipation may result in the awarding of one additional point toward the final exam grade. Following the exam, all consenting students will remain in the classroom and complete the study under identical conditions. The session will begin with a brief introduction outlining the study's purpose. As part of the cover story, participants will be told that the study examines comprehension, attention, and memory across a series of tasks performed under varying time constraints. They will also be informed that their performance in two of these tasks may determine whether they receive a bonus point on their final exam grade. Specifically, they will be told that the first task offers an opportunity to earn the point, while the ability to retain it will depend on their performance in a later task. The first task will be presented as a simple comprehension check. Participants will be told that they are about to learn the rules of “Split or Steal”, a game featured in a British television program, and that they will then be asked to demonstrate that they have understood how the game works. The rules of the game will be explained through a brief slide presentation, accompanied by a standardized explanatory text read aloud by the experimenter. Before beginning the task, participants will be clearly informed that they will be required to complete a short multiple-choice quiz administered online via Google Forms. To proceed, they must answer all four questions correctly within a 7-minute time limit, as shown by the timer that will be projected on the classroom screen. They will be told that the purpose of the quiz is to assess whether they have paid attention to the explanation, understood the rules of the game, and are able to recall them accurately—reflecting the study’s alleged focus on comprehension, attention, and memory. If any errors are made, the slides will be reviewed briefly and the same quiz will be repeated once. Participants will also be explicitly informed that failing the second attempt, or not responding within 7 minutes, will result in exclusion from the study and they will not be eligible for the provisional bonus point. This procedure ensures that only participants who have demonstrably understood the “Split or Steal” rules continue in the study. At this stage, participants will not yet be aware that they will later take part in the game themselves. Participants who pass the quiz—either on their first or second attempt—will subsequently be randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions, with gender-balanced allocation applied to ensure an approximately equal gender distribution across groups. The second task will involve completing a set of individual difference measures, presented via Google Form. All 27 items will be rated on a 5-point Likert scale and will be presented in a single randomized block. This format minimizes potential order effects and avoids artificial segmentation of conceptually related constructs. The Google form will be configured to require a response to every item in order to be submitted, ensuring full data completeness. The individual difference measures collected are: 1. The Persuadability subscale of the Multidimensional Iowa Suggestibility Scale (MISS; Kotov et al., 2004; Italian adaptation: Liuzza et al., 2024), comprising 13 items. This subscale specifically assesses cognitive openness to persuasion through reasoning, argumentation, and exposure to alternative viewpoints. This focus directly aligns with the nature of the experimental manipulation. Administering only this subscale ensures both conceptual relevance and measurement parsimony, while preserving the psychometric rigor of the original scale. 2. The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD; Jonason & Webster, 2010; Italian adaptation: Schimmenti et al., 2019), a 12-item scale that assesses Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy, with four items per trait. 3. The University Peer Trust Scale (UPTS), a two-item measure developed ad hoc for this study, assesses participants’ personal experience-based perceptions of their university peers' cooperativeness versus self-interest. One item reflects perceived cooperativeness, while the second reflects perceived self-interest and is reverse-scored. Although not psychometrically validated, the internal consistency of the UPTS will be assessed using the Spearman-Brown corrected correlation between the two items. If this correlation falls below r = .30, the scale will be excluded from hypothesis-driven analyses. Participants will not have a fixed time limit to complete the questionnaire. After 10 minutes, a verbal reminder will be given to encourage them to complete it. If they have not finished after an additional 5 minutes, a second verbal reminder will be provided. Once each participant has completed the questionnaire, they will receive a stapled packet containing three double-sided sheets. On the front of Sheet 1 (page 1), participants will find the printed general instructions for a reading, underlining, and summarising task, including the directive “Do not turn the page until instructed,” along with designated spaces in which to write their first and last names. The back of Sheet 1 (page 2) will contain the target text for the reading-and-underlining task. The front of Sheet 2 (page 3) will provide ruled lines headed “Write your summary here,” whereas the reverse side (page 4) will be intentionally left blank. Sheet 3 will be folded once along its short edge so that its two printed faces (pages 5–6) are initially concealed; the outward face (page 6 when folded) will display the message “Do not unfold until instructed.” When they are authorised to unfold it, page 5 will present the 14 Free Will and Determinism Plus (FAD+) items measuring Belief in Free Will and Scientific Determinism (Paulhus & Carey, 2011; Italian adaptation: Fino & Iliceto, 2023). The items will be followed—after a short blank spacer—by a single horizontal line on which participants will later record their “Split” or “Steal” decision. Participants in the experimental condition will find a scientific text intended to influence their beliefs. This manipulation text presents a sequence of empirical findings and theoretical claims drawn from multiple sources. It begins with Francis Crick’s (1994) reductionist view that what we perceive as the self and free will is merely the activity of neurons, followed by Benjamin Libet’s (Libet et al., 1983) demonstration that voluntary actions are initiated in the brain before conscious awareness. It then introduces further neuroscientific evidence from Soon et al. (2008) and Bode et al. (2011), who extended Libet’s findings by showing that the outcomes of voluntary choices can be predicted from brain activity several seconds before conscious awareness. Philosophical arguments are included as well, such as Sam Harris’s (2012) claim that intentions arise from unconscious causes, and Susan Blackmore’s (2013) assertion that the experience of free will is a persistent illusion. Additionally, to undermine belief in moral responsibility, the text refers to a real-world legal case (Feresin, 2009) in which genetic predispositions influenced sentencing, and presents Anthony Cashmore’s (2010) position that individuals cannot be held responsible for behavior determined by genes and environment. Finally, the text culminates with Robert Sapolsky’s (2023) thesis that all human outcomes are shaped by forces outside of our control, and that the concept of free will and personal desert are incompatible with current scientific understanding. In order to avoid misrepresenting the views or findings of the authors cited, the text includes carefully selected direct quotations that accurately reflect their original claims and conclusions. In the control condition, participants will find a structurally matched scientific text, unrelated to psychology, free will, or determinism. For example, it may describe astronomical phenomena such as the life cycle of stars. The text will mirror the experimental one in structure, length, number of direct quotations, and bibliographic references, to ensure comparability. The manipulation and control texts, originally written in English, will be translated into Italian using ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI) to generate an initial draft. This draft will then be critically reviewed and, if necessary, revised by a psychologist who is a native speaker of Italian, fluent in English, and has expertise in cognitive science. The final version will preserve the original structure, length, tone, and citation format to ensure conceptual equivalence and experimental validity. All participants will be asked to underline key points and write a brief summary. Participants will be instructed to engage with the material for the entire duration and a 20-minute timer will be projected on the classroom screen. To preserve the cover story and to promote deeper internalization of the material, they will be told that it is important to continue reading and reviewing the text for the full 20 minutes, even if they complete the underlining and summary earlier. Participants will also be informed in advance that, immediately after the 20-minute period, a second timer of 5 minutes will begin. At that point, participants will be allowed to unfold the third sheet and complete the selected items from the FAD+, presented in the same order as in the original scale. Although items measuring belief in free will typically include references to moral responsibility, the present study treats free will beliefs and moral responsibility beliefs as theoretically distinct constructs, in line with evidence from Stinnett et al. (2022) supporting a two-factor structure. This distinction will be applied during data analysis by grouping the relevant items accordingly. Upon expiration of the 5-minute timer, participants will be informed that they have reached the final task of the study and will be led to believe that their previously earned bonus point will be paired with that of another randomly selected participant. The resulting total of two points will be described as the prize. Each participant will then be asked, under a strict 10-second time constraint, to choose whether to split the prize equally or attempt to steal the full amount. They will record their decision on the horizontal line printed on page 5 of the unfolded sheet. Participants will be clearly informed that their decisions will remain anonymous to their peers, and that the final outcome of the game—namely, whether they have earned 0, 1, or 2 additional points on the exam—will be communicated to them individually via email. In reality, no actual pairing will take place and the game will be fully simulated. All participants who comply with the instructions will receive one bonus point, regardless of their choice. Upon expiration of the 10-second timer, participants will receive a full debrief explaining the true purpose of the study. They will be informed that the “Split or Steal” game was simulated, that no real pairing occurred, and that the bonus points were not contingent on their choice. The debrief will also clarify the scientific aims of the manipulation and give participants the opportunity to ask questions. The first main hypothesis of the study (H1) concerns the effectiveness of the manipulation. Participants in the experimental condition are expected to report a significant reduction in their belief in free will and moral responsibility, along with a significant increase in their belief in scientific determinism, compared to participants in the control condition. This prediction is based on robust meta-analytic evidence. Genschow et al. (2022) report average effect sizes of g = –0.29 for reductions in free will belief, and g = +0.17 for increases in scientific determinism, with stronger effects observed when beliefs are measured immediately after the manipulation and when participants engage actively with it (up to g = –0.46). The current design includes these features. With 50 participants per group and α = .05 (one-tailed), power is ≈ 0.41 for g = 0.29 and ≈ 0.74 for g = 0.46. The minimum detectable effect at 80% power is g ≈ 0.52. Thus, although statistical significance cannot be guaranteed, the study is nevertheless expected to yield directionally meaningful results consistent with prior meta-analytic findings. The second main hypothesis (H2) concerns the effect of the experimental manipulation on cooperative behavior in the “Split or Steal” game. We predict that participants in the experimental condition will exhibit a statistically significant increase in the proportion of “Steal” choices compared to those in the control condition. Prior laboratory studies (Drouvelis et al., 2023) observed “Steal” rates between 30% and 37% in conditions that included brief, anonymous written communication between players. The present study eliminates all forms of communication or negotiation between participants. Prior meta-analytic evidence indicates that allowing written communication increases cooperation in social dilemmas (d = 0.46; Balliet, 2010), suggesting that its removal—as in the present study—may substantially reduce cooperative behavior. At the same time, reputational cues are introduced: participants complete the task in the physical presence of experimenters and provide identifying information during data collection. These features may invoke reputational concerns similar to the “watching eyes” effect, which has been shown to reduce antisocial behavior (d = –0.35; Dear et al., 2019). Although all responses will be anonymized before analysis, this partial visibility is expected to modestly suppress “Steal” behavior. Accounting for these opposing influences, we estimate that 35.5% of control participants (17–18 out of 50) will choose “Steal”. This modestly exceeds the rates reported by Drouvelis et al. (2023), and reflects the anticipated increase due to the absence of written communication, partially offset by reputational cues introduced in the experimental setup. Detecting a statistically significant increase in the experimental group would require that approximately 56.8% (≈ 28–29 out of 50) choose “Steal,” corresponding to a small-to-moderate effect size (Cohen’s h ≈ 0.43, assuming a control rate of 35.5%). With 50 participants per group and α = .05 (one-tailed), power to detect this effect is ≈ 70 %. In addition to the main hypotheses outlined above, the study will explore several predictions concerning individual differences in responsiveness to the manipulation, personality traits, and perceived peer trust. These hypothesis are considered exploratory (E) due to the limited sample size and the complexity of the models involved. However, each hypothesis is specified a priori and grounded in theoretical considerations and/or prior empirical findings. The third hypothesis (E3) concerns individual differences in susceptibility to the manipulation. Among participants in the experimental condition, higher scores on the Persuadability subscale of the MISS are expected to predict stronger effects of the manipulation. This moderating effect will be reflected in (1) a greater reduction in belief in free will and moral responsibility, (2) a greater increase in belief in scientific determinism, and (3) a higher likelihood of choosing “Steal” in the “Split or Steal” task. Conversely, participants with lower Persuadability scores are expected to show weaker belief change and a greater tendency to behave cooperatively. This hypothesis is motivated by the construct validity of the Persuadability subscale of the MISS which assesses openness to persuasion through reasoning and exposure to alternative viewpoints—features that closely align with the cognitive demands of the manipulation. The fourth hypothesis (E4) concerns the combination of individual characteristics that are expected to jointly predict non-cooperative behavior in the experimental condition. Among participants exposed to the manipulation, the likelihood of choosing “Steal” is expected to be highest among those who simultaneously exhibit high persuadability, reduced belief in moral responsibility, elevated levels of psychopathy, and low perceived peer trust. This prediction is supported by findings from Drouvelis et al. (2023), who showed that psychopathy predicts selfish choices in the “Split or Steal” paradigm, and from Djeriouat (2024), who found that psychopathy is associated with lower attributions of free will and moral responsibility. While Machiavellianism was also linked to selfish behavior (Drouvelis et al., 2023), it does not appear to undermine belief in moral responsibility (Djeriouat, 2024). Narcissism, although marginally associated with reduced moral attribution (Djeriouat, 2024), was not significantly related to selfish behavior in this context (Drouvelis et al., 2023). For these reasons, only psychopathy is included as a trait that aligns with both behavioral tendencies and belief-related susceptibility. In addition, recent evidence suggests that social trust plays a critical role in sustaining prosocial behavior, particularly under some uncertainty conditions (Spadaro et al., 2023). Accordingly, participants who perceive their university peers as generally self-interested are expected to be more likely to “Steal”, especially when dispositional and cognitive factors conducive to non-cooperation are also present. Conversely, participants who score low on psychopathy, low on persuadability, high on moral responsibility, and high on perceived peer trust are expected to be more likely to choose “Split”. The fifth hypothesis (E5) concerns predictors of non-cooperative behavior in the control condition. Among participants not exposed to the manipulation, the likelihood of choosing “Steal” is expected to be higher in those who naturally exhibit reduced belief in moral responsibility, elevated levels of psychopathy, and low perceived peer trust. These variables may exert independent or interactive effects: either diminished moral constraint, dispositional callousness, or a cynical perception of peers may be sufficient to promote non-cooperative behavior, but their combination is expected to amplify the effect. The rationale for excluding Machiavellianism and narcissism from this hypothesis mirrors that outlined in the fourth hypothesis. Conversely, participants who score low on psychopathy, high on moral responsibility, and high on perceived peer trust are expected to be more likely to choose “Split”. The sixth hypothesis (E6) concerns the relationship between personality traits, perceived peer trust, and belief dimensions targeted by the manipulation. Across conditions, belief in moral responsibility is expected to be negatively correlated with psychopathy. In addition, exploratory analyses will examine correlations between each of the Dark Triad traits and the three belief components measured by the FAD+. These associations are expected to reflect stable dispositional tendencies but may be magnified by the manipulation. Associations are therefore expected to be stronger in the experimental condition, where the deterministic message may reinforce the psychological link between individual traits and belief systems. Exploratory analyses will also examine associations between perceived peer trust, belief dimensions, and personality traits. Individuals high in antisocial traits tend to hold more cynical expectations about others (Spadaro et al., 2023); accordingly, lower peer trust may correlate with reduced belief in moral responsibility and higher scores on Dark Triad traits. Further non-hypothesized associations among the measured constructs may also be explored in an exploratory framework, where appropriate. The seventh hypothesis (E7) proposes that the manipulation’s impact on the likelihood of choosing “Steal” is indirect, operating through changes in post-manipulation belief scores on the three FAD+ subscales. Specifically, lower scores on Free-Will and Moral-Responsibility and higher scores on Scientific-Determinism, recorded after the reading phase and before the behavioural choice, are expected to account for any difference in behaviour between the experimental and control groups. The mediation model will include all participants, with Condition as the independent variable, the three belief scores as parallel mediators, and the “Split” or “Steal” choice as the outcome. Indirect effects will be estimated with bootstrap methods and interpreted descriptively as hypothesis-generating. Gender and age will be included as covariates in all analyses, although no specific predictions are made regarding their effects. The present sample will most likely be predominantly female (~81%) and composed of psychology students from a first-year undergraduate cohort. Italian data indicate that psychology students are typically enrolled with a delay of approximately 1.2 years compared to the canonical enrollment age of 19, suggesting an average participant age of around 21 (AlmaLaurea, 2023a, 2023b). This expectedly limited age range reduces the likelihood of systematic age-related effects. As for gender, prior evidence shows that men tend to score higher than women across all Dark Triad traits, which have been associated with reduced attribution of moral responsibility and lower cooperation in the “Split or Steal” task (Schimmenti et al., 2019; Djeriouat, 2024; Drouvelis et al., 2023). Gender differences have also been observed in levels of generalized trust, with men showing slightly higher trust toward unfamiliar others (Van den Akker et al., 2020). While these patterns suggest potential gender-related variation in personality traits, trust, and moral beliefs, the expected highly unbalanced gender distribution in the current study limits the generalizability and interpretability of any observed effects. Finally, previous findings suggest that neither gender nor age influences responses to belief-in-free-will manipulations (Genschow et al., 2022). This study has been reviewed and approved by the Comitato Etico per la Ricerca Transdisciplinare (CERT; Transdisciplinary Research Ethics Committee) of Suor Orsola Benincasa University in Naples, Italy. Specifically, during the session held on April 11, 2025, the committee issued a positive ethical opinion for the project, submitted under protocol number 2355, dated March 31, 2025. References: AlmaLaurea. (2023a). Classe di laurea triennale in Scienze e tecniche psicologiche. https://www2.almalaurea.it/cgi-asp/classi/scheda.aspx?codiceAggr=10034&lang=it AlmaLaurea. (2023b). Quanto tempo impiegano gli studenti per laurearsi? https://www.almalaurea.it/news/eta-media-laurea Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., & DeWall, C. N. (2009). Prosocial benefits of feeling free: Disbelief in free will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 35(2), 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327217 Blackmore, S. (2013). Living without free will. In G. D. Caruso (Ed.), Exploring the illusion of free will and moral responsibility (pp. 25–34). Lexington Books. Bode, S., He, A. H., Soon, C. S., Trampel, R., Turner, R., & Haynes, J.-D. (2011). Tracking the unconscious generation of free decisions using ultra-high field fMRI. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21612. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021612 Cashmore, A. R. (2010). The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(10), 4499–4504. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0915161107 Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. Scribner. Balliet, D. (2010). Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002709352443 Dear, K., Dutton, K., & Fox, E. (2019). Do ‘watching eyes’ influence antisocial behavior? A systematic review & meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.01.006 Djeriouat, H. (2024). The Dark Triad of personality and folk intuitions about free will and moral responsibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 217, 112457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112457 Drouvelis, M., Gerson, J., Powdthavee, N., & Riyanto, Y. E. (2023). Large losses from little lies: Strategic gender misrepresentation and cooperation. PLoS One, 18(3), e0282335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282335 Feresin, E. (2009). Italian court reduces sentence due to genetic predisposition to violence. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2009.1057 Fino, E., & Iliceto, P. (2023). Do people have control over the decisions they make? Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the free will and scientific determinism questionnaire (FAD-plus-I). Current Psychology, 42(13), 11268-11286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02268-4 Genschow, O., Cracco, E., Schneider, J., Protzko, J., Wisniewski, D., Brass, M., & Schooler, J. W. (2022). Manipulating belief in free will and its downstream consequences: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(1), 52-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221087527 Harris, S. (2012). Free will. Free Press. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological assessment, 22(2), 420. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0019265 Kotov, R. I., Bellman, S. B., & Watson, D. B. (2004). Multidimensional Iowa Suggestibility Scale (MISS). New York: Stony Brook University. Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). Brain, 106(3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623 Liuzza, M. T., Tolomeo, E., Occhiuto, G., Cilurzo, M., Martino, I., & Cerasa, A. (2024). Italian adaptation of the Multidimensional Iowa Suggestibility Scale (MISS). PeerJ, 12, e17145. http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17145 Paulhus, D. L., & Carey, J. M. (2011). The FAD–Plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of personality assessment, 93(1), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528483 Protzko, J., Ouimette, B., & Schooler, J. (2016). Believing there is no free will corrupts intuitive cooperation. Cognition, 151, 6-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.014 Sapolsky, R. M. (2023). Determined: A science of life without free will. Penguin Press. Spadaro, G., Molho, C., Van Prooijen, J. W., Romano, A., Mosso, C. O., & Van Lange, P. A. (2023). Corrupt third parties undermine trust and prosocial behaviour between people. Nature human behaviour, 7(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01457-w Schimmenti, A., Jonason, P. K., Passanisi, A., La Marca, L., Di Dio, N., & Gervasi, A. M. (2019). Exploring the dark side of personality: Emotional awareness, empathy, and the Dark Triad traits in an Italian Sample. Current Psychology, 38, 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9588-6 Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., & Haynes, J.-D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 543–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2112 Stinnett, A. J., Rodriguez, J. E., Littlefield, A. K., & Alquist, J. L. (2022). Distinguishing free will from moral responsibility when measuring free will beliefs: The FWS-II. Philosophical Psychology, 37(8), 2285-2311. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2139232 Van Den Akker, O. R., van Assen, M. A., Van Vugt, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2020). Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 81, 102329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102329

This study aims to examine whether exposing participants to a scientific argument that frames human behavior as the outcome of deterministic processes reduces their belief in free will and moral responsibility, while simultaneously strengthening their endorsement of scientific determinism. The study also investigates how this shift affects cooperative decision-making in a moral dilemma involving academic incentives. Prior research has shown that undermining belief in free will can lead to decreased prosocial behavior and increased selfishness or aggression. For instance, Baumeister et al. (2009) found that participants induced to disbelieve in free will were less willing to help others and more likely to behave aggressively. Similarly, Protzko et al. (2016) demonstrated that challenging belief in free will disrupts intuitive cooperation: participants who read texts that experimentally reduced free will belief were less cooperative in an economic game under time pressure, suggesting that disbelief may promote impulsive self-interest. A recent meta-analysis has confirmed that anti–free will manipulations reliably reduce belief in free will and increase belief in determinism; however, the evidence for consistent downstream behavioral effects remains weak and inconclusive (Genschow et al., 2022). This underscores the importance of identifying boundary conditions and examining whether specific individual differences—such as traits from the Dark Triad of personality, high persuadability, or social trust—moderate the behavioral impact of such manipulations, particularly in contexts involving moral decision-making. Building on this evidence, the present study investigates whether inducing doubt about the existence of free will and personal moral accountability affects individuals’ decisions to cooperate or defect in a time-pressured variant of the “Split or Steal” game from the British TV show Golden Balls. In the original format, two contestants engage in a strategic conversation where they attempt to build trust or deceive one another before simultaneously revealing their decision – “Split” or “Steal” – using two sealed golden balls. If both players choose “Split”, the prize is divided equally. If one chooses “Steal” while the other chooses “Split,” the one who steals takes the entire prize and the other gets nothing. If both choose “Steal,” both walk away empty-handed. In our adaptation, we excluded the negotiation phase present in the original format of the Golden Balls game to minimize the interval between the experimental manipulation and the behavioral task. This methodological choice was made to preserve the potential effectiveness of the manipulation, as the effects of belief manipulations targeting free will tend to fade over time (Genschow et al., 2022). Furthermore, the present adaptation does not involve a monetary prize, but rather academic bonus points as the perceived reward. All participants will be tested simultaneously in the same room and will be led to believe that, at the time of their decision between “Split” or “Steal”, they are competing for the bonus point they individually earned at the beginning of the session, combined with that of another participant in the room with whom they will supposedly be randomly paired at the end of the experiment. Conducting the task in a single session also eliminates the risk that participants who have already completed the study might disclose that the game is simulated, thereby preserving the credibility of the experimental setup. Participants will be undergraduate psychology students enrolled in the bachelor's degree program in Technological and Scientific Fundamentals of Cognitive Psychology (L-24) at Suor Orsola Benincasa University in Naples, Italy. The study will be conducted in Italian and will involve students taking part in a scheduled first-year written examination. The goal is to recruit at least 100 participants. Five days before the exam, when registration closes, eligible students will receive an email containing a Google Form through which they can confirm their willingness to participate, and provide informed consent and demographic information (age and gender). They will be informed that their partecipation may result in the awarding of one additional point toward the final exam grade. Following the exam, all consenting students will remain in the classroom and complete the study under identical conditions. The session will begin with a brief introduction outlining the study's purpose. As part of the cover story, participants will be told that the study examines comprehension, attention, and memory across a series of tasks performed under varying time constraints. They will also be informed that their performance in two of these tasks may determine whether they receive a bonus point on their final exam grade. Specifically, they will be told that the first task offers an opportunity to earn the point, while the ability to retain it will depend on their performance in a later task. The first task will be presented as a simple comprehension check. Participants will be told that they are about to learn the rules of “Split or Steal”, a game featured in a British television program, and that they will then be asked to demonstrate that they have understood how the game works. The rules of the game will be explained through a brief slide presentation, accompanied by a standardized explanatory text read aloud by the experimenter. Before beginning the task, participants will be clearly informed that they will be required to complete a short multiple-choice quiz administered online via Google Forms. To proceed, they must answer all four questions correctly within a 7-minute time limit, as shown by the timer that will be projected on the classroom screen. They will be told that the purpose of the quiz is to assess whether they have paid attention to the explanation, understood the rules of the game, and are able to recall them accurately—reflecting the study’s alleged focus on comprehension, attention, and memory. If any errors are made, the slides will be reviewed briefly and the same quiz will be repeated once. Participants will also be explicitly informed that failing the second attempt, or not responding within 7 minutes, will result in exclusion from the study and they will not be eligible for the provisional bonus point. This procedure ensures that only participants who have demonstrably understood the “Split or Steal” rules continue in the study. At this stage, participants will not yet be aware that they will later take part in the game themselves. Participants who pass the quiz—either on their first or second attempt—will subsequently be randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions, with gender-balanced allocation applied to ensure an approximately equal gender distribution across groups. The second task will involve completing a set of individual difference measures, presented via Google Form. All 27 items will be rated on a 5-point Likert scale and will be presented in a single randomized block. This format minimizes potential order effects and avoids artificial segmentation of conceptually related constructs. The Google form will be configured to require a response to every item in order to be submitted, ensuring full data completeness. The individual difference measures collected are: 1. The Persuadability subscale of the Multidimensional Iowa Suggestibility Scale (MISS; Kotov et al., 2004; Italian adaptation: Liuzza et al., 2024), comprising 13 items. This subscale specifically assesses cognitive openness to persuasion through reasoning, argumentation, and exposure to alternative viewpoints. This focus directly aligns with the nature of the experimental manipulation. Administering only this subscale ensures both conceptual relevance and measurement parsimony, while preserving the psychometric rigor of the original scale. 2. The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD; Jonason & Webster, 2010; Italian adaptation: Schimmenti et al., 2019), a 12-item scale that assesses Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy, with four items per trait. 3. The University Peer Trust Scale (UPTS), a two-item measure developed ad hoc for this study, assesses participants’ personal experience-based perceptions of their university peers' cooperativeness versus self-interest. One item reflects perceived cooperativeness, while the second reflects perceived self-interest and is reverse-scored. Although not psychometrically validated, the internal consistency of the UPTS will be assessed using the Spearman-Brown corrected correlation between the two items. If this correlation falls below r = .30, the scale will be excluded from hypothesis-driven analyses. Participants will not have a fixed time limit to complete the questionnaire. After 10 minutes, a verbal reminder will be given to encourage them to complete it. If they have not finished after an additional 5 minutes, a second verbal reminder will be provided. Once each participant has completed the questionnaire, they will receive a stapled packet containing three double-sided sheets. On the front of Sheet 1 (page 1), participants will find the printed general instructions for a reading, underlining, and summarising task, including the directive “Do not turn the page until instructed,” along with designated spaces in which to write their first and last names. The back of Sheet 1 (page 2) will contain the target text for the reading-and-underlining task. The front of Sheet 2 (page 3) will provide ruled lines headed “Write your summary here,” whereas the reverse side (page 4) will be intentionally left blank. Sheet 3 will be folded once along its short edge so that its two printed faces (pages 5–6) are initially concealed; the outward face (page 6 when folded) will display the message “Do not unfold until instructed.” When they are authorised to unfold it, page 5 will present the 14 Free Will and Determinism Plus (FAD+) items measuring Belief in Free Will and Scientific Determinism (Paulhus & Carey, 2011; Italian adaptation: Fino & Iliceto, 2023). The items will be followed—after a short blank spacer—by a single horizontal line on which participants will later record their “Split” or “Steal” decision. Participants in the experimental condition will find a scientific text intended to influence their beliefs. This manipulation text presents a sequence of empirical findings and theoretical claims drawn from multiple sources. It begins with Francis Crick’s (1994) reductionist view that what we perceive as the self and free will is merely the activity of neurons, followed by Benjamin Libet’s (Libet et al., 1983) demonstration that voluntary actions are initiated in the brain before conscious awareness. It then introduces further neuroscientific evidence from Soon et al. (2008) and Bode et al. (2011), who extended Libet’s findings by showing that the outcomes of voluntary choices can be predicted from brain activity several seconds before conscious awareness. Philosophical arguments are included as well, such as Sam Harris’s (2012) claim that intentions arise from unconscious causes, and Susan Blackmore’s (2013) assertion that the experience of free will is a persistent illusion. Additionally, to undermine belief in moral responsibility, the text refers to a real-world legal case (Feresin, 2009) in which genetic predispositions influenced sentencing, and presents Anthony Cashmore’s (2010) position that individuals cannot be held responsible for behavior determined by genes and environment. Finally, the text culminates with Robert Sapolsky’s (2023) thesis that all human outcomes are shaped by forces outside of our control, and that the concept of free will and personal desert are incompatible with current scientific understanding. In order to avoid misrepresenting the views or findings of the authors cited, the text includes carefully selected direct quotations that accurately reflect their original claims and conclusions. In the control condition, participants will find a structurally matched scientific text, unrelated to psychology, free will, or determinism. For example, it may describe astronomical phenomena such as the life cycle of stars. The text will mirror the experimental one in structure, length, number of direct quotations, and bibliographic references, to ensure comparability. The manipulation and control texts, originally written in English, will be translated into Italian using ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI) to generate an initial draft. This draft will then be critically reviewed and, if necessary, revised by a psychologist who is a native speaker of Italian, fluent in English, and has expertise in cognitive science. The final version will preserve the original structure, length, tone, and citation format to ensure conceptual equivalence and experimental validity. All participants will be asked to underline key points and write a brief summary. Participants will be instructed to engage with the material for the entire duration and a 20-minute timer will be projected on the classroom screen. To preserve the cover story and to promote deeper internalization of the material, they will be told that it is important to continue reading and reviewing the text for the full 20 minutes, even if they complete the underlining and summary earlier. Participants will also be informed in advance that, immediately after the 20-minute period, a second timer of 5 minutes will begin. At that point, participants will be allowed to unfold the third sheet and complete the selected items from the FAD+, presented in the same order as in the original scale. Although items measuring belief in free will typically include references to moral responsibility, the present study treats free will beliefs and moral responsibility beliefs as theoretically distinct constructs, in line with evidence from Stinnett et al. (2022) supporting a two-factor structure. This distinction will be applied during data analysis by grouping the relevant items accordingly. Upon expiration of the 5-minute timer, participants will be informed that they have reached the final task of the study and will be led to believe that their previously earned bonus point will be paired with that of another randomly selected participant. The resulting total of two points will be described as the prize. Each participant will then be asked, under a strict 10-second time constraint, to choose whether to split the prize equally or attempt to steal the full amount. They will record their decision on the horizontal line printed on page 5 of the unfolded sheet. Participants will be clearly informed that their decisions will remain anonymous to their peers, and that the final outcome of the game—namely, whether they have earned 0, 1, or 2 additional points on the exam—will be communicated to them individually via email. In reality, no actual pairing will take place and the game will be fully simulated. All participants who comply with the instructions will receive one bonus point, regardless of their choice. Upon expiration of the 10-second timer, participants will receive a full debrief explaining the true purpose of the study. They will be informed that the “Split or Steal” game was simulated, that no real pairing occurred, and that the bonus points were not contingent on their choice. The debrief will also clarify the scientific aims of the manipulation and give participants the opportunity to ask questions. The first main hypothesis of the study (H1) concerns the effectiveness of the manipulation. Participants in the experimental condition are expected to report a significant reduction in their belief in free will and moral responsibility, along with a significant increase in their belief in scientific determinism, compared to participants in the control condition. This prediction is based on robust meta-analytic evidence. Genschow et al. (2022) report average effect sizes of g = –0.29 for reductions in free will belief, and g = +0.17 for increases in scientific determinism, with stronger effects observed when beliefs are measured immediately after the manipulation and when participants engage actively with it (up to g = –0.46). The current design includes these features. With 50 participants per group and α = .05 (one-tailed), power is ≈ 0.41 for g = 0.29 and ≈ 0.74 for g = 0.46. The minimum detectable effect at 80% power is g ≈ 0.52. Thus, although statistical significance cannot be guaranteed, the study is nevertheless expected to yield directionally meaningful results consistent with prior meta-analytic findings. The second main hypothesis (H2) concerns the effect of the experimental manipulation on cooperative behavior in the “Split or Steal” game. We predict that participants in the experimental condition will exhibit a statistically significant increase in the proportion of “Steal” choices compared to those in the control condition. Prior laboratory studies (Drouvelis et al., 2023) observed “Steal” rates between 30% and 37% in conditions that included brief, anonymous written communication between players. The present study eliminates all forms of communication or negotiation between participants. Prior meta-analytic evidence indicates that allowing written communication increases cooperation in social dilemmas (d = 0.46; Balliet, 2010), suggesting that its removal—as in the present study—may substantially reduce cooperative behavior. At the same time, reputational cues are introduced: participants complete the task in the physical presence of experimenters and provide identifying information during data collection. These features may invoke reputational concerns similar to the “watching eyes” effect, which has been shown to reduce antisocial behavior (d = –0.35; Dear et al., 2019). Although all responses will be anonymized before analysis, this partial visibility is expected to modestly suppress “Steal” behavior. Accounting for these opposing influences, we estimate that 35.5% of control participants (17–18 out of 50) will choose “Steal”. This modestly exceeds the rates reported by Drouvelis et al. (2023), and reflects the anticipated increase due to the absence of written communication, partially offset by reputational cues introduced in the experimental setup. Detecting a statistically significant increase in the experimental group would require that approximately 56.8% (≈ 28–29 out of 50) choose “Steal,” corresponding to a small-to-moderate effect size (Cohen’s h ≈ 0.43, assuming a control rate of 35.5%). With 50 participants per group and α = .05 (one-tailed), power to detect this effect is ≈ 70 %. In addition to the main hypotheses outlined above, the study will explore several predictions concerning individual differences in responsiveness to the manipulation, personality traits, and perceived peer trust. These hypothesis are considered exploratory (E) due to the limited sample size and the complexity of the models involved. However, each hypothesis is specified a priori and grounded in theoretical considerations and/or prior empirical findings. The third hypothesis (E3) concerns individual differences in susceptibility to the manipulation. Among participants in the experimental condition, higher scores on the Persuadability subscale of the MISS are expected to predict stronger effects of the manipulation. This moderating effect will be reflected in (1) a greater reduction in belief in free will and moral responsibility, (2) a greater increase in belief in scientific determinism, and (3) a higher likelihood of choosing “Steal” in the “Split or Steal” task. Conversely, participants with lower Persuadability scores are expected to show weaker belief change and a greater tendency to behave cooperatively. This hypothesis is motivated by the construct validity of the Persuadability subscale of the MISS which assesses openness to persuasion through reasoning and exposure to alternative viewpoints—features that closely align with the cognitive demands of the manipulation. The fourth hypothesis (E4) concerns the combination of individual characteristics that are expected to jointly predict non-cooperative behavior in the experimental condition. Among participants exposed to the manipulation, the likelihood of choosing “Steal” is expected to be highest among those who simultaneously exhibit high persuadability, reduced belief in moral responsibility, elevated levels of psychopathy, and low perceived peer trust. This prediction is supported by findings from Drouvelis et al. (2023), who showed that psychopathy predicts selfish choices in the “Split or Steal” paradigm, and from Djeriouat (2024), who found that psychopathy is associated with lower attributions of free will and moral responsibility. While Machiavellianism was also linked to selfish behavior (Drouvelis et al., 2023), it does not appear to undermine belief in moral responsibility (Djeriouat, 2024). Narcissism, although marginally associated with reduced moral attribution (Djeriouat, 2024), was not significantly related to selfish behavior in this context (Drouvelis et al., 2023). For these reasons, only psychopathy is included as a trait that aligns with both behavioral tendencies and belief-related susceptibility. In addition, recent evidence suggests that social trust plays a critical role in sustaining prosocial behavior, particularly under some uncertainty conditions (Spadaro et al., 2023). Accordingly, participants who perceive their university peers as generally self-interested are expected to be more likely to “Steal”, especially when dispositional and cognitive factors conducive to non-cooperation are also present. Conversely, participants who score low on psychopathy, low on persuadability, high on moral responsibility, and high on perceived peer trust are expected to be more likely to choose “Split”. The fifth hypothesis (E5) concerns predictors of non-cooperative behavior in the control condition. Among participants not exposed to the manipulation, the likelihood of choosing “Steal” is expected to be higher in those who naturally exhibit reduced belief in moral responsibility, elevated levels of psychopathy, and low perceived peer trust. These variables may exert independent or interactive effects: either diminished moral constraint, dispositional callousness, or a cynical perception of peers may be sufficient to promote non-cooperative behavior, but their combination is expected to amplify the effect. The rationale for excluding Machiavellianism and narcissism from this hypothesis mirrors that outlined in the fourth hypothesis. Conversely, participants who score low on psychopathy, high on moral responsibility, and high on perceived peer trust are expected to be more likely to choose “Split”. The sixth hypothesis (E6) concerns the relationship between personality traits, perceived peer trust, and belief dimensions targeted by the manipulation. Across conditions, belief in moral responsibility is expected to be negatively correlated with psychopathy. In addition, exploratory analyses will examine correlations between each of the Dark Triad traits and the three belief components measured by the FAD+. These associations are expected to reflect stable dispositional tendencies but may be magnified by the manipulation. Associations are therefore expected to be stronger in the experimental condition, where the deterministic message may reinforce the psychological link between individual traits and belief systems. Exploratory analyses will also examine associations between perceived peer trust, belief dimensions, and personality traits. Individuals high in antisocial traits tend to hold more cynical expectations about others (Spadaro et al., 2023); accordingly, lower peer trust may correlate with reduced belief in moral responsibility and higher scores on Dark Triad traits. Further non-hypothesized associations among the measured constructs may also be explored in an exploratory framework, where appropriate. The seventh hypothesis (E7) proposes that the manipulation’s impact on the likelihood of choosing “Steal” is indirect, operating through changes in post-manipulation belief scores on the three FAD+ subscales. Specifically, lower scores on Free-Will and Moral-Responsibility and higher scores on Scientific-Determinism, recorded after the reading phase and before the behavioural choice, are expected to account for any difference in behaviour between the experimental and control groups. The mediation model will include all participants, with Condition as the independent variable, the three belief scores as parallel mediators, and the “Split” or “Steal” choice as the outcome. Indirect effects will be estimated with bootstrap methods and interpreted descriptively as hypothesis-generating. Gender and age will be included as covariates in all analyses, although no specific predictions are made regarding their effects. The present sample will most likely be predominantly female (~81%) and composed of psychology students from a first-year undergraduate cohort. Italian data indicate that psychology students are typically enrolled with a delay of approximately 1.2 years compared to the canonical enrollment age of 19, suggesting an average participant age of around 21 (AlmaLaurea, 2023a, 2023b). This expectedly limited age range reduces the likelihood of systematic age-related effects. As for gender, prior evidence shows that men tend to score higher than women across all Dark Triad traits, which have been associated with reduced attribution of moral responsibility and lower cooperation in the “Split or Steal” task (Schimmenti et al., 2019; Djeriouat, 2024; Drouvelis et al., 2023). Gender differences have also been observed in levels of generalized trust, with men showing slightly higher trust toward unfamiliar others (Van den Akker et al., 2020). While these patterns suggest potential gender-related variation in personality traits, trust, and moral beliefs, the expected highly unbalanced gender distribution in the current study limits the generalizability and interpretability of any observed effects. Finally, previous findings suggest that neither gender nor age influences responses to belief-in-free-will manipulations (Genschow et al., 2022). This study has been reviewed and approved by the Comitato Etico per la Ricerca Transdisciplinare (CERT; Transdisciplinary Research Ethics Committee) of Suor Orsola Benincasa University in Naples, Italy. Specifically, during the session held on April 11, 2025, the committee issued a positive ethical opinion for the project, submitted under protocol number 2355, dated March 31, 2025. References: AlmaLaurea. (2023a). Classe di laurea triennale in Scienze e tecniche psicologiche. https://www2.almalaurea.it/cgi-asp/classi/scheda.aspx?codiceAggr=10034&lang=it AlmaLaurea. (2023b). Quanto tempo impiegano gli studenti per laurearsi? https://www.almalaurea.it/news/eta-media-laurea Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., & DeWall, C. N. (2009). Prosocial benefits of feeling free: Disbelief in free will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 35(2), 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327217 Blackmore, S. (2013). Living without free will. In G. D. Caruso (Ed.), Exploring the illusion of free will and moral responsibility (pp. 25–34). Lexington Books. Bode, S., He, A. H., Soon, C. S., Trampel, R., Turner, R., & Haynes, J.-D. (2011). Tracking the unconscious generation of free decisions using ultra-high field fMRI. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21612. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021612 Cashmore, A. R. (2010). The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(10), 4499–4504. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0915161107 Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. Scribner. Balliet, D. (2010). Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002709352443 Dear, K., Dutton, K., & Fox, E. (2019). Do ‘watching eyes’ influence antisocial behavior? A systematic review & meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.01.006 Djeriouat, H. (2024). The Dark Triad of personality and folk intuitions about free will and moral responsibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 217, 112457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112457 Drouvelis, M., Gerson, J., Powdthavee, N., & Riyanto, Y. E. (2023). Large losses from little lies: Strategic gender misrepresentation and cooperation. PLoS One, 18(3), e0282335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282335 Feresin, E. (2009). Italian court reduces sentence due to genetic predisposition to violence. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2009.1057 Fino, E., & Iliceto, P. (2023). Do people have control over the decisions they make? Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the free will and scientific determinism questionnaire (FAD-plus-I). Current Psychology, 42(13), 11268-11286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02268-4 Genschow, O., Cracco, E., Schneider, J., Protzko, J., Wisniewski, D., Brass, M., & Schooler, J. W. (2022). Manipulating belief in free will and its downstream consequences: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(1), 52-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221087527 Harris, S. (2012). Free will. Free Press. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological assessment, 22(2), 420. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0019265 Kotov, R. I., Bellman, S. B., & Watson, D. B. (2004). Multidimensional Iowa Suggestibility Scale (MISS). New York: Stony Brook University. Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). Brain, 106(3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623 Liuzza, M. T., Tolomeo, E., Occhiuto, G., Cilurzo, M., Martino, I., & Cerasa, A. (2024). Italian adaptation of the Multidimensional Iowa Suggestibility Scale (MISS). PeerJ, 12, e17145. http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17145 Paulhus, D. L., & Carey, J. M. (2011). The FAD–Plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of personality assessment, 93(1), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528483 Protzko, J., Ouimette, B., & Schooler, J. (2016). Believing there is no free will corrupts intuitive cooperation. Cognition, 151, 6-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.014 Sapolsky, R. M. (2023). Determined: A science of life without free will. Penguin Press. Spadaro, G., Molho, C., Van Prooijen, J. W., Romano, A., Mosso, C. O., & Van Lange, P. A. (2023). Corrupt third parties undermine trust and prosocial behaviour between people. Nature human behaviour, 7(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01457-w Schimmenti, A., Jonason, P. K., Passanisi, A., La Marca, L., Di Dio, N., & Gervasi, A. M. (2019). Exploring the dark side of personality: Emotional awareness, empathy, and the Dark Triad traits in an Italian Sample. Current Psychology, 38, 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9588-6 Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., & Haynes, J.-D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 543–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2112 Stinnett, A. J., Rodriguez, J. E., Littlefield, A. K., & Alquist, J. L. (2022). Distinguishing free will from moral responsibility when measuring free will beliefs: The FWS-II. Philosophical Psychology, 37(8), 2285-2311. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2139232 Van Den Akker, O. R., van Assen, M. A., Van Vugt, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2020). Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 81, 102329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102329

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 1414 Date: 2012-12-22 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: VIG-II Order Source: URL Abstract: Agricultural Marketing Dept. – Allegation of irregularities against Sri K. Jayasekhar, former DEE & EE (FAC), Visakhapatnam and presently working as EE(AM) Vijayawada, failed to verify the expiry of contract registration –Article of charges issued- Appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer- Orders –Issued. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 1513 Date: 2009-12-19 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: AGRI-V Order Source: URL Abstract: A.P.L.C.-L.C.Q.No.2018(Starred)–Notice given by Sri.Reddivari Reddapa Reddy, MLC- Regarding Shortage of fertilizers-as Recorded. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 1513 Date: 2009-12-19 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: AGRI-V Order Source: URL Abstract: A.P.L.C.-L.C.Q.No.2018(Starred)–Notice given by Sri.Reddivari Reddapa Reddy, MLC- Regarding Shortage of fertilizers-as Recorded. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Manuscript Order Number: 312 Date: 2010-12-21 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Service Matter Section: FP-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Establishment – APAS – Sri D.Haribabu Chowdary, ADA, A.P.AGROS, is appointed by transfer on promotion as Deputy Director of Agriculture, and placed his services to the A.P.AGROS, on deputation basis initially for a period of one year, on adhoc basis for the panel year 2009-10 – Orders – Issued. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Manuscript Order Number: 21 Date: 2011-01-22 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: COOP-III Order Source: URL Abstract: Cooperation Department - Cooperation Urban Banks - Converting the Bhagyanagar Coop. Urban Bank Ltd., into the Bhagyanagar Coop.Credit Society Ltd., by replacement of liquidator and appointing Sri B. Yadaiah, as its Chairman along with other Govt. Officials to run the Bhagyanagar Coop. Credit Society – Orders –Issued Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 315 Date: 2011-03-18 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: OP-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Office Procedure – Agriculture and Cooperation Department – Supply of News papers and Magazines for use of Deputy Secretary to Government (Coop.), Agriculture and Cooperation Department during the months of November, 2009 to April, 2010 - Expenditure -Sanction – Orders – Issued. Amount: 1500

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 400 Date: 2011-04-15 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: OP-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Office Procedure – Agriculture and Cooperation Department – General Provident Fund – Sri V.Mahender Rao, A.S.O, Agriculture & Cooperation Department – Sanction of G.P.F. Part-final withdrawal for House building repairs for an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- from his G.P.F. Account. No.Edn/73517 – Orders – Issued. Amount: 198000

The Trump administration has renewed an offer to cooperate with Russia in the Syrian conflict, including on military matters, ahead of President Donald Trumpâs meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Friday. The U.S. has renewed its offer to cooperate with Russia in Syria. AP correspondent Mike Gracia reports, this comes ahead of Friday's meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Trump administration has renewed an offer to cooperate with Russia in the Syrian conflict, including on military matters, ahead of President Donald Trumpâs meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Friday. The U.S. has renewed its offer to cooperate with Russia in Syria. AP correspondent Mike Gracia reports, this comes ahead of Friday's meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 << image # 4 || image # 6 >>  Title of the news item and the image number / article : Cooperation between the Public and Private sectors helps to maintain an Aruban tradition, image # 5 Tags / Mentions (institution, Organization, People, etc.) in the article: , To see all materials belonging to the news item: Cooperation between the Public and Private sectors helps to maintain an Aruban tradition , and the original article .

A group of friends who ramble and shamble while dice rumble and tumble. Call us casually-hardcore role players of Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, Dungeon Delver, Mouse Guard, and Gamma World.

A group of friends who ramble and shamble while dice rumble and tumble. Call us casually-hardcore role players of Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, Dungeon Delver, Mouse Guard, and Gamma World.

United States objectives in Latin America have been frustrated by mismanagement and misunderstanding in spite of continued application of U. S. resources. In contrast the Inter American Geodetic Survey has made solid progress toward engineering achievement and hemispheric solidarity since 1946. Official and technical documents are reviewed for keys to the concept of operation, and the organizational arrangements that have permitted this progress to continue in an uncertain international climate. Technical accomplishments are reviewed briefly. Adaptation to individual country requirements within an overall program, realistic long range goals, continuity of management, and emphasis on development of Latin American capabilities are singled out as major elements in LAGS performance, and are suggested for application to parallel programs.

United States objectives in Latin America have been frustrated by mismanagement and misunderstanding in spite of continued application of U. S. resources. In contrast the Inter American Geodetic Survey has made solid progress toward engineering achievement and hemispheric solidarity since 1946. Official and technical documents are reviewed for keys to the concept of operation, and the organizational arrangements that have permitted this progress to continue in an uncertain international climate. Technical accomplishments are reviewed briefly. Adaptation to individual country requirements within an overall program, realistic long range goals, continuity of management, and emphasis on development of Latin American capabilities are singled out as major elements in LAGS performance, and are suggested for application to parallel programs.

The present study examines the social and emotional factors influencing people's decision to wear a protective facial mask, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the factors influencing people's evaluations of others' usage (e.g., what people will see poor mask usage as being most untrustworthy). The latter portion is a key point of novelty for this study. A major conceptual goal of the manuscript is to shed light on human cooperation, in general, which will carry implications beyond the ongoing pandemic.

Antony Davies, associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, looked at the roles that cooperation and coercion play in our society and argued that while the latter is sometimes necessary, it's the former that leads to happiness and progress. Sponsor: FreedomFest

Antony Davies, associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, looked at the roles that cooperation and coercion play in our society and argued that while the latter is sometimes necessary, it's the former that leads to happiness and progress. Sponsor: FreedomFest

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 1410 Date: 2010-10-06 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: VIG-II Order Source: URL Abstract: Public Servants – Agricultural Marketing Dept. – Allegation of irregularities in construction of onion godowns in A.M.Cs in the State – Disciplinary action against Sri B.Dharma Reddy, Executive Engineer(M)(Now Retired), Sri K.V.Subba Rao, Deputy Executive Engineer(M), Eluru and Sri P.V.Nagesh, Assistant Engineer(M), Ananthapur – Articles of charges issued – Appointment of Inquiring Authority & Presenting Officer – Revised Orders – Issued. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 1641 Date: 2010-11-20 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Transfers Section: COOP-II Order Source: URL Abstract: Establishment- Cooperation Department- Gazetted officers-Transfers and postings- Sri K. Rama Krishna, Special Cadre Deputy Registrar, as officiating District Cooperative Officer, Khammam and Sri M. Sai Krishnudu, Special Cadre Deputy Registrar, as Officiating District Cooperative Officer, Medak against the existing vacancies of Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officers, Khammam and Medak- Orders- Issued. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 348 Date: 2011-03-26 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Tours Section: OP-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Office Procedure – Agriculture and Cooperation Department – Sri M. Sudhakar, IFS, Special Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperation Department – Permission to attend Phase V Mid Career Training Programme scheduled from 28.3.2011 to 23.4.2011 at IGNFA, Dehradun and Abroad – Sanction of 80% advance to incur traveling expenses-- Orders – Issued. Amount: 20000

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 567 Date: 2011-05-23 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: MKTG-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Agricultural Marketing Department – APSWC – Amendment to the Qualifications for the Posts of Attender and Guard-cum-Peon/Watchmen in Appendix.III of the Regulation 6 of APSWC Employees Regulation, 1965 - Orders – Issued. Amount: 0

This slide presentation reviews selected lessons that were learned during the design, development, assembly and operation of the International Space Station. The critical importance of standards and common interfaces is emphasized to create a common operation environment that can lead to flexibility and adaptability.

Government Publishing Office U.S. Congress House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED U.S.-UAE AGREEMENT Date(s) Held: 2009-07-08 111th Congress, 1st Session GPO Document Source: CHRG-111hhrg50914 Superintendents of Documents ID: Y 4.IN 8/16 Witnesses: The Honorable Ellen O. Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, U.S. Department of State Related Items: United States House Resolution 333 (111th Congress) United States House Bill 364 (111th Congress) United States House Resolution 402 (111th Congress) United States House Bill 2410 (111th Congress) Congressional Serial No. 111-27

.@FedericaMog received today @SusanaMalcorra to continue #EU #Argentina cooperation in different fields

#EUDefence -More cooperation between Member States and greater pooling of national resources. Europe needs to take care of its own security. https://t.co/0ZW8VYSuDp Federica Mogherini on European Defence Action Plan European Defence Fund and other actions to support Member States' more efficient spending in joint defence capabilities and strengthen European citizens' security

#EUDefence -More cooperation between Member States and greater pooling of national resources. Europe needs to take care of its own security. https://t.co/0ZW8VYSuDp Federica Mogherini on European Defence Action Plan European Defence Fund and other actions to support Member States' more efficient spending in joint defence capabilities and strengthen European citizens' security

#EUDefence -More cooperation between Member States and greater pooling of national resources. Europe needs to take care of its own security. https://t.co/0ZW8VYSuDp Federica Mogherini on European Defence Action Plan European Defence Fund and other actions to support Member States' more efficient spending in joint defence capabilities and strengthen European citizens' security

Mohsin S. Khan, former director for the Middle East and Central Asia at the International Monetary Fund, assesses the Persian Gulf countriesâ prospects for a monetary union and a repository of dollar reserves generated by oil.

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 273 Date: 2020-03-16 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: VIG-II Order Source: URL Abstract: Public Service – Marketing Department – Departmental Proceedings against Sri V. Bhaskara Rao, Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Gudiwada - Under Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 read with Rule 172 of Andhra Pradesh(Agriculture Product & Live Stock) Markets Rules, 1969 – Articles of Charges – Issued. Amount: 0

Title: 【Water Resources and Water Supply】JICA's Cooperation on water and sanitation(Full ver.) Published on: 2020-03-26 Original video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dwtCBGyK0U

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 382 Date: 2011-04-06 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: SERI Order Source: URL Abstract: All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1954 – Sri S.K. Sinha, IAS, Commissioner of Sericulture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad – Reimbursement of medical expenses for an amount of Rs.9,153/- - Sanction – Accorded- Orders- Issued. Amount: 9153

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 845 Date: 2010-06-26 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: MKTG-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Agricultural Marketing Department – Agricultural Market Committees –Constitution of Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District – Notification – Orders – Issued. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 1206 Date: 2010-09-02 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: MKTG-III Order Source: URL Abstract: Agriculture and Cooperation Department – Agricultural Market Committee Services – Sri S.Sudharshan, Assistant Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Jagtial presently working as Secretary Grade-III, Agricultural Market Committee, Siddipet Kept in Full Additional Charge of the post of Secretary Grade-I Agricultural Market Committee, Jagtial - Sanction of Full Additional Charge allowance for the period from 08.04.2009 F.N. to 02.09.2009- Accorded-Orders-Issued. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 26 Date: 2010-01-08 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: COOP-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Cooperation Department – Sanction of an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the CC&RCS, A.P., Hyderabad under Normal State Plan for 2nd quarter for office expenses for the year 2009-10 – Sanction – Orders – Issued. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 163 Date: 2010-02-08 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: VIG-II Order Source: URL Abstract: Public Servants – Horticulture Department – Departmental proceedings initiated against Sri M.A.Saleem, Ex-Assistant Director of Horticulture(now retired) for certain allegation of irregularities in misappropriation of Government funds at Panchayat Samiti, Tirumalayapalem, Khammam District – Awarding of penalty of withholding of 10% pension permanently besides recovery of amount of Rs.4,024-87 Ps.under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules,1980 - Orders– Issued. Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 366 Date: 2010-03-20 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Service Matter Section: FP-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Estt., - APAS – Sanction of an amount of Rs.12,600/- in favour of Sri N.Subba Reddy, JDA (Retd.,) Ongole, Prakasam Dist., towards self treatment for Phacoemulsifixation RE under LA with Foldable Lens Imported at J.S.RAOS Eye Clinic, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – Orders – Issued Amount: 0

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 433 Date: 2010-04-01 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: OP-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Office Procedure – Agriculture and Cooperation Department – Expenditure towards cost of servicing to the Govt. Car No. AP09 BM 4789, Agriculture and Cooperation Department – Sanctioned – Orders – Issued. Amount: 1995

Andhra Pradesh Government Order Order Type: Routine Order Number: 487 Date: 2010-04-15 Department: AGC01 - AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION Category: Others Section: OP-I Order Source: URL Abstract: Office Procedure – Agriculture and Cooperation Department Maintenance of Government Vehicles – Supply of Petrol and other oil etc., charges for the month of March,, 2010 - Expenditure – Sanction – Orders – Issued. Amount: 29125

Title: L’Agence Japonaise de Coopération Internationale (JICA) au Burundi Published on: 2023-04-12 Original video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zh_qHYUc9g

Title: L’Agence Japonaise de Coopération Internationale (JICA) au Burundi Published on: 2023-04-12 Original video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zh_qHYUc9g

Title: L’Agence Japonaise de Coopération Internationale (JICA) au Burundi Published on: 2023-04-12 Original video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zh_qHYUc9g