Procedure Participants will first watch a short introductory video, and then fill out the information sheet. Afterwards, participants will be told the following: Please consider the following hypothetical scenario Then, they will be randomly assigned to one of two groups, genes or tbi (traumatic brain injury). Genes: J--- is a American adult who was born with genes for permanent below-average self-control. One day, he gets into a heated argument with a stranger. Unable to resist, he punches the man in the face so hard, the man goes permanently blind in one eye. TBI: J--- is a American adult who suffered minor brain damage as an adult. The only effect was the brain damage left J--- with permanent below-average self-control. One day, he gets into a heated argument with a stranger. Unable to resist, he punches the man in the face so hard, the man goes permanently blind in one eye. Immediately after the condition, on the same page, participants will be asked: Would you find J--- guilty of assault and battery? [No/Yes, No=0, Yes=1] On the next page: Assume J--- is found guilty. This crime is punishable by up to five years in prison or probation. Would you recommend J--- go to prison or be put on probation? [Probation/Prison, Probation=0, Prison=1] How much at fault is J--- for the man going blind in one eye? [1-5 unnumbered scale, 1=None at all, 2=A little, 3=A moderate amount, 4=A lot, 5= A great deal] How much should the victim blame J--- for making him go blind in one eye? [1-5 unnumbered scale, 1=None at all, 2=A little, 3=A moderate amount, 4=A lot, 5= A great deal] On the next page: How much self-control did J--- exert before punching the man?’ [5-1 unnumbered scale, 5= A great deal, 4=A lot, 3=A moderate amount, 2=A little, 1=None at all] How much do you agree with the following: Deep down, the true self of J--- is not a violent person [1-7 unnumbered Likert scale, 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Somewhat disagree, 4=Neither agree nor disagree, 5=Somewhat agree, 6=Agree, 7=Strongly agree] On a separate page, we will ask the ‘wrongness’ question: For Genes condition: Based on J-- having genes causing below-average self-control, to what extent would you say that there is something ‘wrong’ with them? [1-5 unnumbered Likert scale: None at all, A little, A moderate amount, A lot, A great deal] For TBI: Based on J-- having minor brain damage causing below-average self-control, to what extent would you say there is something ‘wrong’ with them? [1-5 unnumbered Likert scale: None at all, A little, A moderate amount, A lot, A great deal] To extend our theoretical rationale, on a separate page, we will finally ask: For Genes condition: Based on J-- having genes causing below-average self-control, to what extent would you say that this person has a condition? [1-5 unnumbered Likert scale: None at all, A little, A moderate amount, A lot, A great deal] For TBI: Based on J-- having minor brain damage causing below-average self-control, to what extent would you say that this person has a condition? [1-5 unnumbered Likert scale: None at all, A little, A moderate amount, A lot, A great deal] We plan to collect 1500 participants according to the following: Samples including confirmation and replication phase studies should be drawn in a stratified way with unequal probabilities of selection, so that the people who complete each survey will resemble the nation's adult population (according to the most recently available Current Population Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau) in terms of gender, age, education, ethnicity (Hispanic vs. not), race (allowing each respondent to select more than one race), region, and income, if possible. The total size of the drawn sample should be sufficiently large to include more than enough respondents to achieve 1,500 completed interviews (and passing attention checks) within 2 weeks of inviting all of those people to complete the survey. Furthermore, data collections involving a confirmation or replication phase study must be collected in two immediate waves of 750 respondents instead of collecting all 1,500 respondents at the same time. Hence, after the full sample has been drawn, it must be divided into two truly random halves. The only permitted way to make this division is by using random numbers obtained from the Random.org random integer generator (https://www.random.org/integers/?mode=advanced/). Specifically, the survey firm should be instructed to download random numbers from the generator in batches of 10,000, with each integer having a random value between 1 and 10,000, using 1 column, decimal numeral system, and having “Generate your own personal randomization right now” checked. Note, that the sequence generator at random.org is not a valid approach to download random numbers, the survey firm must use the integer generator. Each number drawn should be appended to one respondent in the full sample, until all respondents has been assigned one number each. Respondents who are assigned even random numbers should be treated as belonging to the sample that is first invited to complete the questionnaire and people who are assigned odd random numbers should be treated as belonging to the second sample. Respondents in the first sample should be sorted in an ascending order according to the random.org number assigned to each person. Respondents in the second sample should be sorted in an ascending order according to the random.org number assigned to each person. Beginning with the first person in the sorted list of first sample respondents, enough respondents should be invited so that 750 completed interviews, with respondents passing the attention check(s), is finished collecting within two weeks of the first invitation sent. Each day of data collection, the host university will update the survey respondent providing firm with two numbers: (1) the number of completed questionnaires that passed the attention check(s); and (2) the number of completed questionnaires that did not pass the attention check(s). The survey firm will monitor these numbers and send out additional invitations if necessary in order to achieve 750 completed interviews passing the attention check(s) by the end of the 14th day after the data collection begins, After 750 respondents from the first sample have completed the questionnaire and passed the attention check(s), the second sample will be invited using the same procedure to yield 750 completed interviews passing the attention check(s) by the end of the 14th day after the data collection begins. None of the respondents in the second sample are allowed to be invited before the first sample has finished collecting and been closed for further collection. After each wave, labs may have their participant company replace participants who failed an attention check. River sampling and routers may not be used to obtain respondents for these studies, because those methods do not allow selection of the entire potential sample and randomly splitting it in half before data collection begins. No panel member invited to complete a survey with final N=1,500 may have completed that same survey or a similar one during any prior rounds of testing. Any participants who was invited to take part in the confirmation study may not be invited to take part in this self-replication.