Decision Making
Choice Set Size Task
Also called: choice overload task, assortment size task, overchoice task
Measure how the number of options changes satisfaction, difficulty and choosing later, with small and large sets of geometric patterns.
5-7 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 250
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how the number of options changes decision satisfaction. Participants choose a geometric pattern from sets of 3 or 9, or put off choosing, then rate satisfaction and difficulty. The main score compares satisfaction after small and large sets.
Constructs
- Choice overload
- Decision satisfaction
- Choice deferral
Research uses
- Decision-making research
- Consumer choice research
- Within-study comparison
How the paradigm works
Choice overload is the possibility that adding options makes a decision harder or less satisfying. This task compares choices from 3 and 9 original geometric patterns. Each pattern costs 10 of 100 hypothetical points; choosing later keeps all 100. Participants rate satisfaction with each decision and its difficulty on bars from 0 to 100. Deferrals are rated too. There are 6 matched sets by default, each shown at both sizes in separate blocks. Small sets include one pattern of each shape and color; the large set includes all nine shape-color combinations. Set order, subset and button positions come from the session seed. Two practice sets and a comprehension question with feedback come first.
Scores
- Satisfaction Dropscore
- Mean paired satisfaction with 3 options minus satisfaction with 9, on a 0 to 100 scale. Includes decisions to choose later.
- Positive means less satisfaction with the larger set
- Small Set Satisfactionscore
- Mean decision satisfaction with 3 options.
- Informational
- Large Set Satisfactionscore
- Mean decision satisfaction with 9 options.
- Informational
- Deferral Increase%
- Mean paired difference in choosing later: large set minus small set.
- Positive means more deferral with the larger set
- Small Set Deferral%
- Share of small sets where the participant chose later.
- Informational
- Large Set Deferral%
- Share of large sets where the participant chose later.
- Informational
- Difficulty Increasescore
- Mean paired difficulty with 9 options minus difficulty with 3, on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Positive means the larger set was harder to choose from
- Choice Time Increasems
- Mean paired choice time with 9 options minus choice time with 3.
- Informational; compare the same device and input
- Median Choice Timems
- Median time to choose a pattern or choose later, excluding responses under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Decisionscount
- Number of valid choices, including choosing later.
- Informational
- Rated Pairscount
- Sets with a satisfaction rating at both sizes.
- More pairs support the comparison
- Check Correct0/1
- 1 when the point-rule check was answered correctly.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Clicks Under 100 mscount
- Early choice clicks, which are counted but not accepted by the timeline.
- 0 expected
Use and evidence
250 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 13% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 119 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 70 |
| 2024 | 53 |
| 2023 | 44 |
| 2022 | 42 |
| 2021 | 41 |
| 2020 | 45 |
| 2019 | 52 |
| 2018 | 42 |
| 2017 | 43 |
| 2016 | 39 |
| 2015 | 38 |
| 2014 | 32 |
| 2013 | 30 |
| 2012 | 16 |
| 2011 | 16 |
| 2010 | 10 |
| 2009 | 15 |
| 2008 | 8 |
| 2007 | 4 |
| 2006 | 5 |
| 2005 | 4 |
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 2 |
| 2001 | 3 |
| 2000 | 1 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 23
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: Original geometric patterns; paired 3 versus 9 options, decision satisfaction and deferral; no norms..
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Options
- 3 or 9 original geometric patterns. The small set contains one of each shape and color; the large set contains all nine combinations.
- Sets
- 6 matched sets by default, 4 to 8 in settings. Each appears at both sizes: 12 decisions by default, 8 to 16 in settings.
- Order
- Two blocks, each set once per block. Its first size, the subset, set order and button positions are seeded.
- Points
- 100 points per set; every pattern costs 10. Choosing later keeps 100. No real purchases or money.
- Ratings
- Decision satisfaction and difficulty, each from 0 to 100 with no initial value. Decisions to choose later are also rated.
- Practice
- A point-rule question with feedback and two practice sets, one at each size. No time limit.
- Scores
- Paired satisfaction drop (small minus large), deferral increase, difficulty increase and choice time difference.
An original within-person adaptation of the choice-overload paradigm. Equal point prices and geometric patterns replace real products. The effect depends on the options and task; compare groups using the same settings. No percentile output.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Choices and ratings in the selected run. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the screens invalidate. Missing rounds or a wrong comprehension answer are flagged. No choice or satisfaction level is treated as wrong.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. Set-size effects require both sizes; missing ratings are never replaced with zero.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Matched sets | 6 | 4 to 8 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Choice Set Size Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Iyengar & Lepper, 2000; Chernev, Böckenholt & Goodman, 2015), with the standard settings (matched sets: 6). The main score was satisfaction drop (mean paired satisfaction with 3 options minus satisfaction with 9, on a 0 to 100 scale).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
- Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002
Source papers
Questions
How long does the Choice Set Size Task take?
About 5 to 7 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Satisfaction Drop, Small Set Satisfaction, Large Set Satisfaction, Deferral Increase, Small Set Deferral, Large Set Deferral, Difficulty Increase, Choice Time Increase, Median Choice Time, Decisions, Rated Pairs, Check Correct and Clicks Under 100 ms. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Choice Set Size Task used in research?
250 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 13% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 119 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Choice Set Size Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Matched sets (4 to 8). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.