What are the critical factors that matter to our free choice when under threat from manipulation?

When we are victims of manipulation, then theory expects that our ability to freely choose is threatened by default. But, when looking at folk beliefs, we see nuance in the judgments made about choice and manipulation, which appear to be strongly informed by perspective and context. Regarding perspective, the negative relationship between free choice and manipulation is stronger when we explicitly see ourselves rather than others in the same autonomy threatening contexts. When it comes to context, free choice is impacted more in some manipulative situations (e.g. microtargeting, subliminal priming, subliminal advertising, hypnosis) than others (e.g. jingles, product placement, political campaigning). The labile nature of the relationship between manipulation and free choice, which is in contrast to theoretical expectations, requires further investigation to expose whether these two factors (perspective, context) are robust. The present study stress tests these two factors by examining order effects (Experiment 1 & 2: manipulation vs. autonomy, autonomy vs manipulation), as well as varying verbal descriptions (Experiment 1 & 2: manipulation vs. influence) and the way judgments are expressed (Experiment 1 ratings on scales 0 to 10, Experiment 2 forced choice Y/N). Consistent with previous research, the strength of the relationship between manipulation and free choice is amplified in specific contexts, and when considered from a personalised perspective. The implications of this for theories on free choice and free will are discussed.