Bottom line: no-choice effects seem more nuanced—and less broadly disruptive—than earlier work suggested.
Open-access preprint: drive.google.com/file/d/1KLPc...
This is a key question for anyone designing choice studies.
A classic paper by Dhar & Simonson (2003) suggested that adding a no-choice option can systematically affect results—pulling disproportionately from some alternatives (e.g., compromise or “all-average” options).
The logic extends beyond money:
• In losses, options with more pathways to losing are avoided
• In policy choices, programs with more probabilistic ways to save lives are often preferred
Implication: under risk, people use reasons — and branch structure can become one of them.
Ioannis Evangelidis
Yes—adding a no-choice option typically lowers the absolute share of the available alternatives.
But in my data, those reductions are usually proportional to the options’ original shares.
So, at least in these settings, including a no-choice option does not systematically alter relative preferences
New paper alert! (doi.org/10.1093/jcr/...)
How much does a no-choice option really change what people choose in surveys and experiments?
Ioannis Evangelidis
That said, some findings from the original paper do replicate.
In particular, the likelihood of choosing no-choice depends on the structure of the task and the configuration of the choice set.
For example:
A gamble with a 20% chance to win $14 and a 20% chance to win $15 can feel more attractive than a 40% chance to win $15.
-Even when expected value is lower
-Even when standard models (e.g., Prospect Theory) predict the opposite.
In a new paper (forthcoming in Journal of Consumer Research), I reexamined this claim using 9 well-powered, pre-registered replications across a wide range of stimuli.
Main takeaway: the effects of no-choice options on relative preferences may have been overstated.
Crucially, the effect is context dependent:
• Appears when comparing risky options
• Disappears when a sure option is present
• Reverses when an option is evaluated in isolation
So the same gamble can become more or less attractive depending on the choice set.
New paper (forthcoming in Cognition): Context-dependent effects of branches in decisions under risk authors.elsevier.com/a/1mXL%7E2Hx...
Key finding: when people choose between risky options, they’re more likely to pick the one with more distinct probabilistic outcomes (“more pathways to winning”).
