Seemingly More Extreme : Larger Choice Sets Shift People Towards Objectively, but Not Subjectively, More Extreme Options

Extremeness aversion—the tendency for consumers to prefer middling options in a choice set—is an incredibly robust and well-studied phenomenon (Neumann, Böckenholt, and Sinha 2016; Simonson 1989; Simonson and Tversky 1992; Tversky and Simonson 1993). However, there is still an unanswered question as to how choice set size—the number of options available to the consumer—affects extremeness aversion. In nine studies (Ntotal = 9,671), we demonstrate that consumers choose objectively more extreme options in larger (vs. smaller) choice sets. This occurs because larger choice sets are more likely to have multiple (vs. just one) extreme options at each tier, leading consumer to perceive the objectively more extreme options as less extreme. We demonstrate this effect is robust across different types of large choice sets, hypothetical and incentive-compatible studies, and in a variety of decision contexts (e.g., purchasing an item vs. choosing an activity to complete). Further, we identify boundary conditions, revealing that the composition of a large choice set can attenuate the effect