Past research using free description questions suggested that free will generally means the ability for people to choose their actions based on their mental state while being free from constraints. However, existing scales for assessing people’s beliefs regarding free will were developed based on researchers’ theoretical concepts of free will, rather than on people’s naïve concepts of free will. The authors therefore developed a new scale to measure people’s belief in naïve concepts of free will, which consisted of alternative possibilities, agency, and being free from constraints. Three studies with a total of about 4,000 participants (undergraduates and adults) were included in the analysis. The results confirmed the predicted factor structure and reliability of the scale. In addition, the scores for alternative possibilities and agency were positively correlated with the attribution of moral responsibility. These findings are discussed in relation to the psychological and philosophical literature.

The present study examined the determinants of risk perception and anxiety toward COVID-19, which is a new threat for human beings. As determinants, we focused on the effects of gender, age, and media exposure. The present study was conducted online, which obtained 1555 valid responses. The results showed that women consistently perceived higher risk and had higher anxiety toward COVID-19. As for age groups, risk perception was higher in 60s, but there was no difference in anxiety, while estimations of the probability of infection was highest among 60s. Obtaining information from the television and online news was related with risk perception whilst obtaining information from SNS was related with anxiety. An optimism bias was also observed in the present study. The present study found that the risk perception of COVID-19 differs depending on gender and age. The results suggested that we should consider these differences in risk communication of COVID-19.

Previous studies investigating the public perception of justification for punishment use differing items, rendering their findings incomparable. This study aimed to develop a validated Justification for Punishment Scale (JPS) and a Shorter version of Justification for Punishment Scale (S-JPS). In the preliminary study, passages about justification for punishment were extracted from books on criminal law and then categorized via a thematic analysis (KJ method). In Study 1, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using items from the extracted categories revealed a five-factor model covering retribution, revenge, general prevention, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. Study 2 confirmed the robustness of the factor structure in Study 1 using another EFA with a different sample, and reliability coefficients were adequately high. JPS validity was tested through (partial) correlations between justifications for an offender sentencing and the corresponding factors. Additionally, certain items selected for the S-JPS and their psychometric properties were compared with the JPS. The result showed the JPS and S-JPS have good reliability and validity and can be used for future research.

This study examined the psychological effects of disaster prevention nudges. The participants (total N=1,330) read a scenario describing approaching danger with either a loss-framed evacuation advisory or a non-framed control one and reported their intentions to evacuate, feelings of guilt, and perceived external pressure (Study 1) and rated extrinsic motivational regulation (Study 2). Moreover, in Study 3 the participants were presented with the same scenario and one of three evacuation advisories (loss-framed, gain-framed, and control advisories) and indicated their behavioral intentions, feeling of guilt, perceived external pressure, and extrinsic motivation as in Studies 1 and 2. Both frames increased the participants’ intentions to evacuate, feelings of guilt, and perceived external pressure. However, their effects on extrinsic motivation differed: the loss-framed advisory enhanced all three types of extrinsic motivation, whereas the gain-frame advisory increased only identified regulation. The implications for future work on nudges are discussed.