Participants were told to imagine a hypothetical scenario, and were then randomly assigned to one of seven conditions: ‘Genes for’, ‘Genes: mutation’, or ‘Genes: variant’; each of these conditions with the term ‘rare’ inserted just before the explanation, or a control group. Control group “C--- is an American adult. One day, he is walking down the street and sees a wealthy looking woman walking towards him. Unable to resist, he trips her as she walks past and runs off with her purse.” This crime was chosen because its seriousness matches that of the assault case in studies 1-3, as it is a low-level felony with the possibility of but not mandatory jail time. Genes for group “C--- is an American adult who was born with [rare] genes for permanent below-average self-control. One day, he is walking down the street and sees a wealthy looking woman walking towards him. Unable to resist, he trips her as she walks past and runs off with her purse.” Genes: mutation group “C--- is an American adult who was born with a [rare] genetic mutation on part of a gene called rs16838844. The only effect of this mutation left C-- with permanent below-average self-control. One day, he is walking down the street and sees a wealthy looking woman walking towards him. Unable to resist, he trips her as she walks past and runs off with her purse.” Genes: variant group “C--- is an American adult who was born with a [rare] genetic variant of part of a gene called rs16838844. The only effect of this variant left C-- with permanent below-average self-control. One day, he is walking down the street and sees a wealthy looking woman walking towards him. Unable to resist, he trips her as she walks past and runs off with her purse.” All participants will then be asked Would you find C---- guilty of robbery? [no/yes] Then, on a separate page: Assume C---- was found guilty. This crime is punishable by up to 5 years in prison or on probation. Would you recommend C--- go to prison or be put on probation? [prison/probation]. On the next page: How much self-control did C--- exert before robbing the woman? [unnumbered 5-point scale: 5=A great deal/4=A lot/3=A moderate amount/2=A little/1=None at all]. Deep down, the true self of C--- is a dangerous person [1-7 unnumbered Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree]. On the next page: How much should the victim blame C--- for robbing her? [unnumbered scale: 1=None at all/2=A little/3=A moderate amount/4=A lot/5=A great deal] On the next page: On a scale of 0-100, with 0 meaning not likely at all, 50 meaning a 50% chance like getting heads on a coin flip, and 100 meaning 100% likely, how likely do you think C---- would be to commit a crime like this again if they were put on probation? [sliding scale from 0 to 100 with marks every 10 points, starting position is at 50; centered labels at 0=Not likely at all/50=50% chance/100=Completely likely] Finally, study three showed that the mitigating effect of TBI on resulting low-self-control and criminality was not driven by people thinking there was ‘something wrong’ with the actor. We attempt to test this idea again using items meant to tap into ‘Human Uniqueness’ (Bastian et al., 2011), aspects of individuals that inform how much we hold different people accountable for the same behavior. Participants were asked Ratings made on a 0-100% scale with increments at 10 points, and labels at 0 = Completely not [culturally refined/rational], 50 = Completely unsure; and 100 = Completely [culturally refined/rational].: To what extent do you think C--- is culturally refined? and To what extent do you think C--- is rational? (Bastian et al., 2011). Both questions were on the same page and presented in fixed order. The sliding scale used by Bastian et al., 2011 was also used except we changed it from having marks at every 5 points between 0-100 to marks every 10 points. This was done to facilitate cleaner look for those participants taking the study on a mobile phone. The default starting position for each slider was at 100. **References** Bastian, B., Laham, S. M., Wilson, S., Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2011). Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 50(3), 469-483.