A new study published in Applied Psychology provides evidence that the belief in free will may carry unintended negative consequences for how individuals view gay men. The findings suggest that while believing in free will often promotes moral responsibility, it is also associated with less favorable attitudes toward gay men and preferential treatment for heterosexual men. This effect appears to be driven by the perception that sexual orientation is a personal choice.
Psychological research has historically investigated the concept of free will as a positive force in social behavior. Scholars have frequently observed that when people believe they have control over their actions, they tend to act more responsibly and helpfully. The general assumption has been that a sense of agency leads to adherence to moral standards. However, the authors of the current study argued that this sense of agency might have a “dark side” when applied to social groups that are often stigmatized.
The researchers reasoned that if people believe strongly in human agency, they may incorrectly attribute complex traits like sexual orientation to personal decision-making. This attribution could lead to the conclusion that gay men are responsible for their sexual orientation.
“I’m broadly interested in how beliefs that are typically seen as morally virtuous—like believing in free will—can, in some cases, have unintended negative consequences. Free-will beliefs are generally associated with personal agency, accountability, and moral responsibility,” said study author Shahin Sharifi, a senior lecturer in Marketing at La Trobe Business School.
“But from reviewing the literature, I began to wonder whether these beliefs might also create a sense of moral licensing—where people feel they’ve met their moral obligations simply by believing in responsibility, and therefore let their guard down in other ways. In this paper, we explored one potential manifestation of that: the subtle prejudice that can emerge when people assume sexual orientation is a matter of personal choice and hold others accountable for it.”
The researchers conducted five separate studies using different methodologies. The first study involved 201 adults recruited from the United States. Participants read a workplace scenario about an employee named Jimmy who was nominated for an “employee of the month” award. The researchers manipulated Jimmy’s sexual orientation by altering a single detail in the text. In one version, Jimmy mentioned his girlfriend, while in the other, he mentioned his boyfriend.
Participants in this first study also completed a survey measuring their chronic belief in free will. They rated their agreement with statements such as “People always have the ability to do otherwise.” The researchers then measured the participants’ attitudes toward Jimmy and their willingness to support his nomination. The results showed that participants with stronger free-will beliefs reported more favorable attitudes toward the heterosexual version of Jimmy. This positive association did not exist for the gay version of Jimmy.
The second study sought to establish a causal link by manipulating the belief in free will rather than just measuring it. The researchers recruited 200 participants and assigned them to one of two conditions. One group completed a writing task designed to promote a belief in free will by recalling experiences where they had high control over their lives. The other group wrote about experiences where they lacked control, effectively promoting disbelief in free will.
Following this manipulation, participants evaluated the same “Jimmy” scenario used in the first study. The data revealed that inducing a belief in free will led to divergent outcomes depending on the target’s sexual orientation. Participants primed with free-will beliefs expressed greater intentions to help the heterosexual employee. However, this same prime resulted in reduced intentions to help the gay employee. This finding suggests that free-will beliefs can simultaneously fuel favoritism toward the cultural majority and bias against a minority group.
The third study examined these dynamics in a more formal personnel selection context. The researchers recruited 310 participants who worked in healthcare and social assistance sectors. These industries were chosen because they typically have strong policies regarding workplace discrimination. Participants reviewed a resume for a psychologist position. The qualifications were identical across conditions, but the applicant’s personal interests differed.
In one condition, the applicant was listed as an active member of an LGBTQ+ support group. In the other, he was involved in a general community support group. Participants rated how much they liked the applicant, their expectations of his performance, and his likely organizational citizenship behavior.
The results mirrored the previous studies. Stronger endorsement of free will predicted higher likability ratings for the heterosexual applicant. This “liking” then mediated higher ratings for performance and citizenship. This positive chain of evaluation was significantly weaker or absent when the applicant was identified as gay.
“What surprised us most was how consistent the pattern was,” Sharifi told PsyPost. “We didn’t just find that free-will beliefs were linked to harsher views of gay men; we also found more favorable views of straight individuals. This suggests it’s not just about negativity toward a minority group, it’s also about a kind of favoritism toward the majority, which can be just as impactful.”
The fourth and fifth studies focused on identifying the specific psychological mechanism behind these biases. Study 4a surveyed 297 individuals to assess the relationship between free-will beliefs and perceptions of controllability. Participants rated the extent to which they believed people can freely control or shape their sexual orientation.
The analysis confirmed that belief in free will is strongly correlated with the belief that sexual orientation is controllable. This perception of control was, in turn, associated with more negative attitudes toward homosexuality.
Study 4b utilized an experimental design to verify this mechanism. The researchers recruited 241 participants and divided them into two groups. One group read a scientific passage explaining that sexual orientation is biologically determined and largely unchangeable. The other group read a neutral passage about the effects of classical music. Participants then completed measures of free-will beliefs and attitudes toward gay men.
The findings from this final experiment provided evidence for the researchers’ proposed mechanism. When participants were exposed to information that described sexual orientation as biological and uncontrollable, the link between free-will beliefs and anti-gay attitudes was significantly weakened. This suggests that the negative impact of free-will beliefs relies heavily on the assumption that being gay is a choice. When that assumption is challenged, the bias appears to diminish.
“The main takeaway is that even well-intentioned beliefs—like the idea that everyone has free will—can lead to biased or unfair attitudes, especially when applied to aspects of identity that people don’t actually choose, like sexual orientation,” Sharifi explained.
“Our findings suggest that when people strongly believe in free will, they may assume that being gay is a choice, and as a result, judge gay individuals more harshly. This isn’t always obvious or intentional—it can show up in subtle ways, like hiring preferences or gut-level reactions. The broader message is that we need to be thoughtful about how we apply our moral beliefs and recognize that not everything in life is under personal control.”
“The effects we found were small to moderate—but they matter, especially in real-world settings like job interviews or healthcare. Even subtle biases can add up and shape decisions that affect people’s lives. Our results suggest that moral beliefs like free will can quietly influence how we judge others, without us even realizing it.”
There are limitations to this research that provide directions for future inquiry. The studies focused exclusively on attitudes toward gay men. It remains unclear if similar patterns would emerge regarding lesbian women, bisexual individuals, or transgender people. The underlying mechanism of “controllability” might function differently for other identities within the LGBTQ+ community. Additionally, the samples were drawn entirely from the United States. Conceptions of free will and attitudes toward sexual orientation vary significantly across cultures.
“A key point is that we’re not saying belief in free will is bad,” Sharifi noted. “It can promote responsibility and good behavior in many contexts. But when it’s applied to parts of people’s identity they don’t control—like sexual orientation—it can backfire. Also, most people in our studies didn’t show strong anti-gay attitudes overall. The effects we found were about subtle shifts, not overt prejudice.”
Regarding direction for future research, Sharifi said that “we want to explore how other beliefs that are seen as positive might also contribute to hidden biases. We’re especially interested in workplace settings and how to design training or policies that help reduce these effects without making people feel blamed or defensive.”
“This study reminds us how complex human judgment can be,” he added. “Even our most cherished values, like fairness or responsibility, can have unintended effects. Being aware of these blind spots is the first step toward creating more inclusive and equitable environments, for everyone.”
The study, “The dark side of free will: How belief in agency fuels anti-gay attitudes,” was authored by Shahin Sharifi and Raymond Nam Cam Trau.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.