Professionals were less likely to believe in essences than mTurkers (*β* = -.12, *p* < .001) and tended to believe more in mind-body dualism though the effect was small and statistically non-significant (*β* = .05, *p* = .06). regress essentialism i.professional, vce(robust) Linear regression Number of obs = 1329 F( 1, 1327) = 18.95 Prob > F = 0.0000 R-squared = 0.0144 Root MSE = .52349 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Robust essentialism | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.professional | -.1277305 .0293418 -4.35 0.000 -.1852919 -.070169 _cons | 2.691017 .0183191 146.90 0.000 2.65508 2.726955 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- regress dualism i.professional, vce(robust) Linear regression Number of obs = 1329 F( 1, 1327) = 3.53 Prob > F = 0.0605 R-squared = 0.0027 Root MSE = 1.1689 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Robust dualism | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.professional | .1220063 .064929 1.88 0.060 -.0053684 .2493809 _cons | 5.179392 .0421417 122.90 0.000 5.096721 5.262064 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obligations: Consistent with our pre-registration plan, we test whether professionals had the same beliefs about who should pay the fine as the general population, conditioning on education and essentialism. For who should pay the fine: First, they were no more likely to say the obligation was eliminated (*b*_logit = .061, *p* = .892). Next, professionals showed largely the same trimodal pattern as everyone else. The only difference is that professionals were *more* likely to assign the find to the body than the general population and less likely to split the difference between the two accounts (*b* = .428, *p* = .007, 95%CI = .742 to .115). They were equally likley to be mind-followers (*p* = .585; see Figure 1). These results do not change when also conditioning on the levels of belief in mind-body dualism. zoib paytracksbody, zeroinflate(i.professional ed essentialism) oneinflate(i.professional ed essentialism) robust ML fit of zoib Number of obs = 1302 Wald chi2(0) = . Log pseudolikelihood = -1079.5248 Prob > chi2 = . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Robust paytracksbody | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- proportion | _cons | -.0658259 .0483244 -1.36 0.173 -.1605399 .0288881 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- oneinflate | 1.professional | .4282525 .1599428 2.68 0.007 .1147705 .7417346 ed | -.0322595 .0287282 -1.12 0.261 -.0885657 .0240468 essentialism | -1.375322 .1678976 -8.19 0.000 -1.704395 -1.046249 _cons | 2.893831 .4883275 5.93 0.000 1.936727 3.850935 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- zeroinflate | 1.professional | -.0934968 .171029 -0.55 0.585 -.4287074 .2417138 ed | -.0430033 .0293079 -1.47 0.142 -.1004457 .014439 essentialism | -2.096768 .17974 -11.67 0.000 -2.449052 -1.744484 _cons | 4.965824 .5058568 9.82 0.000 3.974363 5.957285 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- ln_phi | _cons | .6504174 .0702498 9.26 0.000 .5127303 .7881046 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For who should work for the company, the results were largely the same. Professionals were *more* likely to say the body of the person who signed the work contract should fulfill the obligation, even with someone else's brain inside of it. This was because they were less likely to split the obligation between both parties (*b* = .381, *p* = .021, 95%CI = 703 to .059). These results likewise do not change when exploratorily conditioning on beliefs in mind-body dualism. zoib worktracksbody, zeroinflate(i.professional ed essentialism) oneinflate(i.professional ed essentialism) robust ML fit of zoib Number of obs = 1271 Wald chi2(0) = . Log pseudolikelihood = -931.967 Prob > chi2 = . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Robust worktracksbody | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- proportion | _cons | -.0689074 .0351627 -1.96 0.050 -.137825 .0000102 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- oneinflate | 1.professional | .3807131 .1643452 2.32 0.021 .0586025 .7028238 ed | -.0754238 .0307728 -2.45 0.014 -.1357373 -.0151103 essentialism | -1.466738 .180818 -8.11 0.000 -1.821134 -1.112341 _cons | 3.42994 .5200708 6.60 0.000 2.41062 4.44926 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- zeroinflate | 1.professional | -.1378386 .174604 -0.79 0.430 -.4800561 .2043789 ed | -.0360212 .0302132 -1.19 0.233 -.095238 .0231955 essentialism | -2.164988 .186713 -11.60 0.000 -2.530938 -1.799037 _cons | 5.277567 .5141216 10.27 0.000 4.269908 6.285227 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- ln_phi | _cons | 1.584945 .0941225 16.84 0.000 1.400468 1.769422 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results for eliminating the obligation: logit nopay i.professional ed essentialism, vce(robust) Logistic regression Number of obs = 1329 Wald chi2(3) = 3.55 Prob > chi2 = 0.3141 Log pseudolikelihood = -129.81527 Pseudo R2 = 0.0160 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Robust nopay | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.professional | .0612771 .4505954 0.14 0.892 -.8218737 .9444279 ed | -.0365702 .0777055 -0.47 0.638 -.1888702 .1157297 essentialism | -.7265426 .4902365 -1.48 0.138 -1.687389 .2343034 _cons | -1.875071 1.245287 -1.51 0.132 -4.315789 .565646 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- logit nowork i.professional ed essentialism, vce(robust) Logistic regression Number of obs = 1329 Wald chi2(3) = 15.50 Prob > chi2 = 0.0014 Log pseudolikelihood = -228.98162 Pseudo R2 = 0.0393 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Robust nowork | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.professional | -.2910469 .3193101 -0.91 0.362 -.9168833 .3347894 ed | .1062526 .057029 1.86 0.062 -.0055222 .2180273 essentialism | -.9030904 .2802576 -3.22 0.001 -1.452385 -.3537956 _cons | -1.271193 .7918158 -1.61 0.108 -2.823124 .280737 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Identity: Explicit identity judgments followed the same pattern as obligation judgments. Given that there was a strong covariance between people's judgments of identity and obligations for both paying the fine (*r*_Spearman = .449, *p* < .001) and who sould fulfill the work contract (*r*_Spearman = .437, *p* < .001), this should be unsurprising. Furthremore, the strength of this relationship of identity judgments to obligations was the same in both professional groups and the laity (moderation of relationship *p* = .125 for pay and *p* = .122 for work). Overall, professionals were *more* likely to say that John was in the room with his body (40% in professionals vs. 32% in laity, *b* = .586, *p* = .001, 95%CI = .924 to .247). spearman paytracksbody idzoib worktracksbody (obs=1205) | paytra~y idzoib worktr~y -------------+--------------------------- paytracksb~y | 1.0000 idzoib | 0.4492 1.0000 worktracks~y | 0.5599 0.4371 1.0000 tab identity professional, chi2 After the | surgery: John's body | with Adam's brain in | it is wheeled into | professional the West | 0 1 | Total ----------------------+----------------------+---------- in the West Recovery | 241 229 | 470 in the East Recovery | 298 192 | 490 in both Recovery Room | 180 129 | 309 in neither Recovery R | 38 22 | 60 ----------------------+----------------------+---------- Total | 757 572 | 1,329 Pearson chi2(3) = 10.3696 Pr = 0.016 zoib idzoib, zeroinflate(i.professional ed essentialism) oneinflate(i.professional ed essentialism) robust ML fit of zoib Number of obs = 1269 Wald chi2(0) = . Log pseudolikelihood = -822.70981 Prob > chi2 = . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Robust idzoib | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- proportion | _cons | -.0506634 .0298064 -1.70 0.089 -.1090828 .007756 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- oneinflate | 1.professional | .5855374 .1728808 3.39 0.001 .2466972 .9243776 ed | -.1143935 .0298198 -3.84 0.000 -.1728392 -.0559478 essentialism | -.146308 .1555025 -0.94 0.347 -.4510872 .1584713 _cons | 1.16909 .4590586 2.55 0.011 .2693518 2.068828 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- zeroinflate | 1.professional | .0769929 .1740554 0.44 0.658 -.2641495 .4181353 ed | -.0779276 .0285775 -2.73 0.006 -.1339386 -.0219166 essentialism | -.7516189 .1406344 -5.34 0.000 -1.027257 -.4759806 _cons | 2.841576 .4191922 6.78 0.000 2.019975 3.663178 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- ln_phi | _cons | 2.682377 .1445015 18.56 0.000 2.39916 2.965595 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidence: Professionals were not reliably more confident in their assignment of the obligations than the laity were for either who should pay the fine (*H* (1) = 2.857, *p* = .091) or fulfill the work contract (*H* (1) = 2.975, *p* = .085). In both cases professionals were nominally more confident. Professionals were statistically more confident (M = 3.762, SD = 1.02) than the laity in their identity judgments, however (M = 3.346, SD = 1.238; *H* (1) = 27.881, *p* < .001). For confidence ratings of identity judgments directly, there were statistical differences between people's choices (*H* (3) = 53.382, *p* < .001), with people being most confident when they placed John with his body (M = 3.73, SD = 1.163; all pairwise comparisons *p* > .03 after Benjamini-Hochberg correction), and least confident when they said he was in both rooms (M = 3.146, SD = 1.154) and neither room (M = 3.067, SD = 1.177, pairwise comparison = *p* = .358). conovertest confidenceid , by(identity) ma(bh) Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test +--------------------------------+ | identity | Obs | Rank Sum | |--------------+-----+-----------| | in the West | 470 | 347228.00 | | in the East | 490 | 339658.00 | | in both Reco | 309 | 165814.00 | | in neither R | 60 | 31085.00 | +--------------------------------+ chi-squared = 63.382 with 3 d.f. probability = 0.0001 chi-squared with ties = 68.178 with 3 d.f. probability = 0.0001 Conover-Iman Pairwise Comparison of confidenceid by identity (Benjamini-Hochberg) Here? Col Mean-| Row Mean | in the W in the E in both ---------+--------------------------------- in the E | 1.957506 | 0.0303 | in both | 7.650094 5.973000 | 0.0000 0.0000 | in neith | 4.461521 3.547839 0.364039 | 0.0000 0.0003 0.3579 **Exploratory Analyses** For who has to pay the fine In our lay population we replicate the fact the essentialist beliefs predict body following (b = .135, p < .001, 95%CI = .192 to .077) but not in our professional group (b = .031, p = .355). In both groups, however, we do see that those higher in dualist beliefs are more likely to be body followers (laity: b = .032, p = .011, 95%CI = .056 to .007; professionals: b = .037, p = .015, 95%CI = .066 to .007). by professional: regress paytracksbody essentialism ed dualism, vce(robust) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -> professional = 0 Linear regression Number of obs = 742 F( 3, 738) = 15.05 Prob > F = 0.0000 R-squared = 0.0531 Root MSE = .35774 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robust paytracksb~y | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- essentialism | .1346916 .0293709 4.59 0.000 .0770311 .1923522 ed | -.004697 .0055774 -0.84 0.400 -.0156465 .0062525 dualism | .0316197 .0124144 2.55 0.011 .007248 .0559913 _cons | -.0471555 .084296 -0.56 0.576 -.2126439 .118333 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -> professional = 1 Linear regression Number of obs = 560 F( 3, 556) = 2.90 Prob > F = 0.0344 R-squared = 0.0158 Root MSE = .40298 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robust paytracksb~y | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- essentialism | .0313564 .0338939 0.93 0.355 -.0352193 .097932 ed | -.0034721 .0064605 -0.54 0.591 -.0161621 .0092179 dualism | .036622 .0149479 2.45 0.015 .0072607 .0659833 _cons | .2722227 .1231954 2.21 0.028 .0302374 .5142081 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For who has to fulfill the work contract: In the lay group the more one believes in essences the more likely they are to be a body follower (b = .128, p < .001, 95%CI = .185 to .071), the relationship in the professional group was not significant (b = .058, p = .079). This is also the case for dualist beliefs, those in the lay group the more they believe in mind-body dualism the more likely they are to be a body follower (b = .041, p = .001, 95%CI = .065 to .018). This relationship was not replicated in the professional group (b = .023, p = .123). by professional: regress worktracksbody essentialism ed dualism, vce(robust) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -> professional = 0 Linear regression Number of obs = 726 F( 3, 722) = 16.79 Prob > F = 0.0000 R-squared = 0.0624 Root MSE = .34717 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robust worktracks~y | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- essentialism | .1277301 .02902 4.40 0.000 .0707564 .1847039 ed | .0012705 .0057321 0.22 0.825 -.0099831 .0125242 dualism | .0413106 .0120807 3.42 0.001 .0175932 .0650281 _cons | -.1098902 .0844206 -1.30 0.193 -.2756293 .055849 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -> professional = 1 Linear regression Number of obs = 545 F( 3, 541) = 3.31 Prob > F = 0.0199 R-squared = 0.0199 Root MSE = .38842 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robust worktracks~y | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- essentialism | .0580681 .0329937 1.76 0.079 -.0067434 .1228797 ed | -.0101012 .0062602 -1.61 0.107 -.0223985 .0021961 dualism | .0227671 .0147523 1.54 0.123 -.0062118 .0517459 _cons | .3053332 .1192592 2.56 0.011 .0710653 .5396011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Exploratory Breakdown by Professional Group** For obligations, no professional group was substnatially higher than another when determining who should pay the fine, while the work obligation