Analyses proceeded in three stages. First, we looked at whether the term ‘rare’ provided any additional mitigation in the three genes conditions on guilty verdicts and beliefs in the underlying nature of the ‘True self’. This was accomplished by fitting two 3x2 ANOVAs with genes conditions (Genes for; Genes: mutation; Genes: variant) as one factor and whether ‘rare’ was included as the crossing factor. We predict no significant effect for rarity and a main effect for ‘type’ of genes description but no interaction. If this is the case, subsequent analyses will combine the Genes groups into 3 conditions, collapsing across rarity, and conditioning on rarity. If there is no main effect of rarity and no interaction, we will again collapse but not condition on rarity. If there is a significant interaction, we will not collapse and treat the groups separately This first test will be done with the following code: BOOTSTRAP /SAMPLING METHOD=SIMPLE /VARIABLES TARGET=guilty INPUT=rare genesgroup /CRITERIA CILEVEL=95 CITYPE=PERCENTILE NSAMPLES=10000 /MISSING USERMISSING=EXCLUDE. UNIANOVA guilty BY rare genesgroup /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT=INCLUDE /POSTHOC=genesgroup(LSD) /EMMEANS=TABLES(OVERALL) /EMMEANS=TABLES(rare) COMPARE ADJ(LSD) /EMMEANS=TABLES(genesgroup) COMPARE ADJ(LSD) /EMMEANS=TABLES(rare*genesgroup) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN=rare genesgroup rare*genesgroup. The second stage of analyses will depend on the first stage, but will test number of groups defined in the first stage against the control on guilty verdicts, prison versus probation recommendations, blame, and true-self judgments. The purpose of the second stage is to test the effects of the explanations on mitigation directly. The third stage will use the same number of groups (and whether to condition on ‘rarity) defined in the first stage and construct the indirect effects model of mitigation on guilty verdicts, prison recommendations, and blame, indirectly through true-self judgments. This provides the first pre-registered true-self analysis in this manuscript as well. Overall, we predict that by calling the cause a genetic mutation, it will indicate to people that the individual under question was supposed to be someone else, and thus the mutation aspect triggers judgments that their actions are not attributable to their ‘true self’. This will cause mitigation of criminal behavior committed as a result of the mutation. We predict there will be no difference between ‘variant’ and ‘genes for’ conditions, and that neither will be significantly different from the no-information control condition.