Free will is often appraised as a necessary input to for holding others morally or legally responsible for misdeeds. Recently, however, Clark and colleagues (2014) argued for the opposite causal relationship. They assert that moral judgments and the desire to punish motivate people's belief in free will. Three replication experiments (Studies 1-2b) attempt to reproduce these findings. Additionally, a novel experiment (Study 3) tests a theoretical challenge derived from attribution theory, which suggests that immoral behaviors do not uniquely influence free will judgments. Instead, our nonviolation model argues that norm deviations of any kind-good, bad, or strange-cause people to attribute more free will to agents. Across replication experiments we found no consistent evidence for the claim that witnessing immoral behavior causes people to increase their general belief in free will. By contrast, we replicated the finding that people attribute more free will to agents who behave immorally compared to a neutral control (Studies 2a and 3). Finally, our novel experiment demonstrated broad support for our normviolation account, suggesting that people's willingness to attribute free will to others is malleable, but not because people are motivated to blame. Instead, this experiment shows that attributions of free will are best explained by people's expectations for norm adherence, and when these expectations are violated, people infer that an agent expressed their free will to do so.

Objective: Whereas decades of research have been devoted to psychological factors that confer vulnerability to disability and other negative outcomes in the face of chronic pain, recent studies have begun to emphasize psychological characteristics that contribute to enhanced adaptation and better clinical outcomes. Accordingly, the present study was conducted as a longitudinal assessment of the predictive utility of pain resilience and pain catastrophizing as indicators of clinical outcomes among patients receiving a standardized treatment for chronic pain. Method: Using an observational design, analyses were conducted on measures of pain resilience, pain catastrophizing, quality of life, and clinical pain administered to 149 patients upon admission and prior to discharge from an 8-week outpatient functional restoration program. Hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to predict improvement in physical and mental health quality of life and clinical pain intensity at discharge based on individual differences in admission levels of pain-related catastrophizing and resilience. Results: Results of the primary analyses indicated that pain catastrophizing and pain resilience independently predicted physical and mental health quality-of-life outcomes at discharge but did not significantly predict clinical pain intensity. Specifically, higher baseline pain resilience was associated with better quality-of-life outcomes, whereas higher baseline catastrophizing was associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion: This study provides additional support for the notion that pain resilience assessment may help identify those most likely to benefit from targeted efforts to bolster resilience resources during treatment.

Background: A greater understanding of young, first-time donor motivators and barriers is needed to address the ongoing challenge of retaining these essential donors. Study Design and Methods: Structured interviews conducted with 508 young, first-time whole blood donors [66.1% female; Mean Age = 19.4 (SD = 2.5) years] were coded to identify reported motivators and barriers. Reported motivators and barriers were then examined for their association with attempted donation behavior over a 14-month follow-up, and for potential sex, race, and ethnic group differences in the frequency of endorsement.Results: Prosocial motivation (e.g., altruism) was the most commonly reported motivator and fear (e.g., fainting, needles) was the most commonly reported barrier. Donation behavior was unrelated to reported motivators, but was significantly related to four reported barriers including fear of fainting/dizziness, fear of needles/pain, having personal commitments that conflict with donating, and perceiving oneself as unsuited to donate for health reasons. Sex, racial, and ethnic differences were noted with respect to the percentages of donors reporting several donation-related motivators and barriers. Conclusion:The present findings identify donation-related barriers that could be important targets to address in the effort to encourage new young donors and to retain these new donors for the long term. Importantly, these data also

Objectives: Perceived injustice is a maladaptive cognitive appraisal of pain or injury, characterized by attributions of blame, unfairness, severity of loss, and irreparability of loss. Research suggests that perceived injustice may negatively affect pain outcomes by inhibiting the development of pain-related acceptance. The current study aimed to extend cross-sectional research by testing whether pain acceptance mediates the effects of perceived injustice on pain-related outcomes longitudinally. Materials and Methods: Data was analyzed from a prospective study to examine the potential mediating role of pain acceptance on recovery 3 months after an episode of low back pain. Using Mechanical Turk, we recruited participants who experienced an episode of back pain within the preceding 2 weeks, 343 of whom completed measures of perceived injustice, pain acceptance, pain ratings, and quality of life at each of 3 timepoints (recruitment, 1 mo later, and 3 mo later). Path analyses were conducted to examine pain acceptance at 1 month as a potential mediator of the relationship between perceived injustice at recruitment and pain intensity, disability, and depressive symptoms at 3 months. Results: Results indicated that perceived injustice at recruitment was directly related to pain intensity, disability, and depressive symptoms 3 months later, and that pain acceptance partially mediated these relationships. Discussion: Although these findings provide further support for pain acceptance as a buffer for the deleterious effects of perceived injustice, they also highlight that adjunctive mechanisms should be investigated to provide more comprehensive clinical insight.

Free will is often appraised as a necessary input to for holding others morally or legally responsible for misdeeds. Recently, however, Clark and colleagues (2014), argued for the opposite causal relationship. They assert that moral judgments and the desire to punish motivate people’s belief in free will. In three experiments—two exact replications (Studies 1 & 2b) and one close replication (Study 2a) we seek to replicate these findings. Additionally, in a novel experiment (Study 3) we test a theoretical challenge derived from attribution theory, which suggests that immoral behaviors do not uniquely influence free will judgments. Instead, our nonviolation model argues that norm deviations, of any kind—good, bad, or strange—cause people to attribute more free will to agents, and attributions of free will are explained via desire inferences. Across replication experiments we found no evidence for the original claim that witnessing immoral behavior causes people to increase their belief in free will, though we did replicate the finding that people attribute more free will to agents who behave immorally compared to a neutral control (Studies 2a & 3). Finally, our novel experiment demonstrated broad support for our norm-violation account, suggesting that people’s willingness to attribute free will to others is malleable, but not because people are motivated to blame. Instead, this experiment shows that attributions of free will are best explained by people’s expectations for norm adherence, and when these expectations are violated people infer that an agent expressed their free will to do so.