↓ Skip to main content

Choice-Induced Preference Change in the Free-Choice Paradigm: A Critical Methodological Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Choice-Induced Preference Change in the Free-Choice Paradigm: A Critical Methodological Review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00041
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keise Izuma, Kou Murayama

Abstract

Choices not only reflect our preference, but they also affect our behavior. The phenomenon of choice-induced preference change has been of interest to cognitive dissonance researchers in social psychology, and more recently, it has attracted the attention of researchers in economics and neuroscience. Preference modulation after the mere act of making a choice has been repeatedly demonstrated over the last 50 years by an experimental paradigm called the "free-choice paradigm." However, Chen and Risen (2010) pointed out a serious methodological flaw in this paradigm, arguing that evidence for choice-induced preference change is still insufficient. Despite the flaw, studies using the traditional free-choice paradigm continue to be published without addressing the criticism. Here, aiming to draw more attention to this issue, we briefly explain the methodological problem, and then describe simple simulation studies that illustrate how the free-choice paradigm produces a systematic pattern of preference change consistent with cognitive dissonance, even without any change in true preference. Our stimulation also shows how a different level of noise in each phase of the free-choice paradigm independently contributes to the magnitude of artificial preference change. Furthermore, we review ways of addressing the critique and provide a meta-analysis to show the effect size of choice-induced preference change after addressing the critique. Finally, we review and discuss, based on the results of the stimulation studies, how the criticism affects our interpretation of past findings generated from the free-choice paradigm. We conclude that the use of the conventional free-choice paradigm should be avoided in future research and the validity of past findings from studies using this paradigm should be empirically re-established.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
France 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 178 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 20%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 96 52%
Neuroscience 19 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 29 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,860,075
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,815
of 34,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,813
of 289,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#178
of 967 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 967 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.