Effects of the relative values of alternatives on preference for free-choice in humans.
Free-choice appeal fades when one option pays less, even if total rewards stay the same.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Laugeson et al. (2014) asked college students to pick between two computer keys. One key let them choose from four colors. The other key forced a color on them.
All choices paid the same total points. The twist: in some rounds the free-choice colors paid equal points. In others, one color paid less. The team tracked how often students picked the free-choice key.
What they found
When every free color paid the same, students almost always picked the free-choice key. When one color paid fewer points, free-choice picks dropped sharply.
Even though the total points stayed equal, the weaker option scared them away. People want choice, but not if some choices look like losers.
How this fits with other research
Varley et al. (1980) first showed pigeons love free choice. Laugeson et al. (2014) now shows the same rule holds for humans, but only while every option looks fair.
Kirby et al. (1981) seemed to contradict this: their pigeons picked the no-choice key when the choice key held a tiny, annoying reinforcer. The two studies differ by species and by what makes the choice look bad—tiny reinforcer vs. smaller magnitude—so both warn that weak options can kill choice preference.
Kim et al. (2025) review backs this up: choice is not magic. You must watch size, timing, and each client’s history.
Why it matters
If you give clients a choice board, make every option deliver equal value. Drop one weak reinforcer into the array and the whole board loses appeal. Before adding choice, check that all items match the learner’s preferred magnitude.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Audit your choice board: remove or boost any item that pays noticeably less than the others.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Organisms often prefer conditions that allow selection among alternatives (free-choice) to conditions that do not (forced-choice), particularly when response alternatives in free-choice produce equal or greater reinforcer magnitudes than those available under forced-choice. We present data on free-choice preference for human participants who gained or lost points by selecting images of cards on a computer screen under a concurrent-chains schedule. Responding during the initial link gained access to a terminal link offering a single-card set (forced-choice) or a three-card set (free-choice). The alternatives in free-choice produced reinforcer magnitudes (points) that were: (a) equal to forced-choice; (b) equal to and greater than forced-choice; and (c) equal to and less than forced-choice. Participants showed reliable preference for free-choice under some conditions; however, preference decreased as reinforcer magnitude for some alternatives in free-choice was reduced. This occurred even though it was possible to obtain the same number of points across free- and forced-choice. Although preference for free-choice was clearly demonstrated, the effect of points available in the terminal link suggests that this phenomenon is subject to modulation by other processes, such as reinforcement or punishment by obtained outcomes in the terminal link. Context (reinforcer-gain or -loss) was not a reliable predictor of preference.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2014 · doi:10.1002/jeab.99