Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 24, 2025

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
Published on: June 5, 2016
Does choice change preferences? An incentivized test of the mere choice effect
Carlos Alós-Ferrer1, Georg D Granic2,3
1Zurich Center for Neuroeconomics (ZNE), Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract:
Widespread evidence from psychology and neuroscience documents that previous choices unconditionally increase the later desirability of chosen objects, even if those choices were uninformative. This is problematic for economists who use choice data to estimate latent preferences, demand functions, and social welfare. The evidence on this mere choice effect, however, exhibits serious shortcomings which prevent evaluating its possible relevance for economics. In this paper, we present a novel, parsimonious experimental design to test for the economic validity of the mere choice effect addressing these shortcomings. Our design uses well-defined, monetary lotteries, all decisions are incentivized, and we effectively randomize participants' initial choices without relying on deception. Results from a large, pre-registered online experiment find no support for the mere choice effect. Our results challenge conventional wisdom outside economics. The mere choice effect does not seem to be a concern for economics, at least in the domain of decision making under risk.
Supplementary Information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10683-021-09728-5.
More Related Videos
08:24The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
Published on: August 25, 2023
13:04Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
Published on: September 19, 2012
Related Concept Videos
Incentive Theory: Pull Theory of Motivation
The theory differentiates between...
Social Proof
Cause and Effect
Confirmation Biases
Framing Effects
Mate Choice