ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026
Demand avoidance in value-based choice under risk: A behavioral and pupillometric examination.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Why does decision-making sometimes feel demanding while other times feel effortless? The dominant view of cognitive effort suggests that, all else being equal, individuals prefer to avoid mentally effortful courses of action-an empirical phenomenon that has been well-studied in cognitive control paradigms. However, less work has investigated cognitive demand avoidance in value-based decisions. Here we investigate subjective (self-reported) demand, preferences for demand, and psychophysiological measures of effort outlay in the context of risky decision-making. Across three experiments (N = 199), we observe that individuals evaluate choice pairs-consisting of two options with described risk levels and reward magnitudes-with less discriminable expected value differences as subjectively more demanding. More interestingly, participants exhibit a robust preference for low-demand risky choice pairs in a novel Decision Demand Task, which we modeled after a well-characterized demand selection paradigm used in the cognitive control domain. Finally, using pupillometry, we find that participants, contrary to our expectations, exhibit larger task-evoked pupillary responses (TEPRs)-a well-characterized measure of momentary effort exertion-when choosing between low-demand versus high-demand risky choice pairs, and that these TEPR magnitudes predicted subsequent demand-avoidant preferences. Together, these results demonstrate that cognitive demand avoidance generalizes beyond cognitive control tasks to risky value-based choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41634258What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.