Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41593058›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Rejection-based choices discourage people from opting out of voting.

Yi-Hsin Su, Amitai Shenhav

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yi-Hsin SuDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. yi-hsin_su@berkeley.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3629-8262
Amitai ShenhavDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. amitai@berkeley.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0222-0774

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Representing the will of voters is challenging when many opt out of indicating their preferences. Such opt-out behavior has been explained by voters lacking a preference and/or disliking their options. We provide evidence for a third account: people opt out of choosing between undesirable candidates because bad options are incongruent with their typical goal of selecting the best one. Using a voting task, we show across two lab-based studies that the tendency to opt out of choices between bad candidates is eliminated when participants are asked to reject the worst candidate. Leveraging our experimental findings, we simulate elections and show that rejection-based voting can produce election outcomes that are more representative of the preferences of the electorate. To validate this prediction, we conduct two Prolific surveys of self-reported US Independents before the 2024 US presidential election, and show that people are less likely to respond "undecided" when asked who they will vote against rather than who they will vote for. Our findings help understand when and how people vote, and how to better reveal the preferences of voters who know which candidates they like least but are unwilling to endorse the one they like most.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPoliticsVotingDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41593058
PMCPMC12916904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.