IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/17425.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value of Choice - Evidence from an Incentivized Survey Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Grüner, Hans Peter
  • Rohde, Linnéa Marie

Abstract

Do people have a preference for making choices themselves, or do they prefer to choose a preselected alternative? If consumers value choice, recommender systems which facilitate choices might trigger consumers not to choose the recommendation - even when the other alternatives are less preferred. We conduct an incentivized survey experiment with a large sample from the German population, where participants choose between three lotteries. In the main treatment, participants make a choice between a preselected lottery and a two-element choice set, from which they then make an additional choice. We find that participants’ choices exhibit a bias towards the preselected alternative, and estimating a structural model reveals that the mean willingness to pay to make an additional choice is negative. Nevertheless, about 41% of the sample are estimated to have a positive value of choice. We show that measurable individual characteristics correlate with the preference for choice. Linking choices to the Big Five personality traits reveals that the preference for the preselected alternative increases in Openness. Moreover, we link participants’ preferences for choice to their political attitudes, showing that right-wing participants are more likely to prefer the preselected alternative than center-left participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Grüner, Hans Peter & Rohde, Linnéa Marie, 2022. "The Value of Choice - Evidence from an Incentivized Survey Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 17425, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:17425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP17425
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:17425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.