Glad to hear it. As we have seen on this board, the thesis of determinism is difficult to argue for.
I am convinced that we humans have a measure (though surely not total) of free will -- or something remarkably like it.
Yes, as Alfred Mele points out, among the arguments against the having of free will is the claim and idea that we are influenced in our decisions. It's a straw man. No one denies that we are influenced in our decisions. Nevertheless, we can still choose to do those things even that we desperately do not want to do--such as showing up to get one's physical in order to be drafted.
But what I read about the studies above is that it seems to be fairly easy to convince some people of things, for no particular reason than that it's the last thing they read. If you read about non-free-will determinism, then you may not (for a while) feel guilty about cheating. My question about this is very simple: "why do you actually think you believe something, if it's so easy to toss away?
That's a point worth examining.
In some cases, they were quite authoritative texts espousing determinism and mercilessly ridiculing the idea of free will (e.g., Francis Crick's writings). Also, it isn't a matter of the participants tossing their beliefs of free will out the window. They showed a weakened belief on the FWD (et al.) scale.
We can quickly convince you that your belief in free will is nonsense, can we not? Everything you've ever thought, every decision you've ever made, is the product of the electrochemical activity of your neurons. It's all deterministic. There are no multiple possibilities of what you can do or choose--you do and decide and choose what the electrochemical activity of your brain dictates. Right?