\documentclass[twocolumn]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{amsmath,amsthm,amssymb,amsfonts,newtxtext,newtxmath} 
\usepackage{array,graphicx,dcolumn,multirow,hevea,abstract,hanging}
\usepackage[labelfont=sc,textfont=sf]{caption}
\usepackage[hyperfootnotes=false,breaklinks=true]{hyperref} % was dvipdfmx
\urlstyle{rm}
\usepackage[hyphenbreaks]{breakurl}
\usepackage{booktabs} % \toprule \midrule \bottomrule \cmidrule(lr){a-b}
% define centered and ragged columns:
\newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash }p{#1}} % can use m{}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash }p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{>{\raggedleft\arraybackslash }p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{d}[1]{D{.}{.}{#1}} % d{3.2} for 3 places on l, 2 on r
\newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}
\topmargin=-.3in \oddsidemargin=-.1in \evensidemargin=-.1in \textheight=9in \textwidth=6.8in
\setlength\tabcolsep{1mm}
\setlength\columnsep{5mm}
\setlength\abovecaptionskip{.5ex}
\setlength\belowcaptionskip{.5ex}
\setlength\belowbottomsep{.3ex}
\setlength\lightrulewidth{.04em}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.00} \large\normalsize 
\widowpenalty=1000
\clubpenalty=1000
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}
\let\tempone\itemize
\let\temptwo\enditemize
\let\tempthree\enumerate
\let\tempfour\endenumerate
\renewenvironment{itemize}{\tempone\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}}{\temptwo}
\renewenvironment{enumerate}{\tempthree\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}}{\tempfour}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{page}{198} % start with first page

\title{To increase engagement, offer less: The effect of assortment size on children’s engagement}

\author{
Michal Maimaran\thanks{Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University,
2211 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL, 60208. Email: m-maimaran@kellogg.northwestern.edu.}
}

\date{} % leave empty
\begin{document} % goes here

% change next 3 lines each issue
\newcommand{\jref}{http://journal.sjdm.org/vol12.3.html}
\newcommand{\jhead}{Judgment and Decision Making, Vol.~12, No.~3}
\newcommand{\jdate}{May 2017}
\pagestyle{myheadings} \markright{\protect\small \href{\jref}{\jhead}, \jdate \hfill Small assortments increase children’s engagement \qquad}
\begin{htmlonly}
\href{\jref}{\jhead}, \jdate, pp.\ 198-207
\end{htmlonly}
%\begin{latexonly}
\twocolumn[
\vspace{-.5in}
{\small \href{\jref}{\jhead}, \jdate, pp.\ 198--207}
%\end{latexonly}

\maketitle

%\begin{latexonly}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{onecolabstract}
%\end{latexonly}
In a world that offers children abundant activities from which to
choose, understanding how to motivate children to engage longer in
productive activities is crucial. This paper examines how the offered
assortment size affects children’s engagement with their chosen
option. In the first study, I show children prefer to choose from a
larger set even though they think doing so is more difficult. Then, in
Studies 2 and 3, four- to five-year-old children choose from either a
small set (two options) or a large set (six or seven options). In study
2, children choose a book to look at and I measure how long they look
at it. In Study 3, children choose a game to play with and I measure
how long they play. Children spend more time looking at the book and
playing with the game they choose from the small versus the large set.
By contrast, the size of the choice set does not affect food
consumption. Such findings contribute to our understanding of young
children’s decision-making and have important implications for
determining the optimal assortment size to offer children to increase
engagement with desirable activities.

\smallskip
\noindent
Keywords: children, choice behavior, assortment size, engagement, motivation, decision-making
%\begin{latexonly}
\end{onecolabstract}\bigskip
]
%\end{latexonly}

{\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{}

\footnotetext{

  The author would like to thank the children of the McGaw YMCA
  Children’s Center, Evanston, IL, for participating in the research,
  the staff of the children’s center for their help and support, and
  Erin Dierker and Sowa Imoisili for their help in collecting the data
  at the children’s center. The author is grateful to the editor and
  the reviewer for their valuable input, and to Ulf Böckenholt for his
  feedback on earlier versions of the paper. This research was
  supported by an internal funding from Northwestern University to the
  author.

Copyright: \copyright\ 2017.
The authors license this article under the terms of the
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/}{Creative Commons
  Attribution 3.0 License.}
}}

\saythanks

\section{Introduction}

\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.025} \large\normalsize 

In a world that offers children abundant activities from which to
choose, understanding how to motivate children to engage longer in
productive activities is important. Because current engagement can
affect future engagement and persistence in such activities,
understanding how to increase current engagement in productive
activities has important benefits. For example, the more a child
interacts with books by being read to, by looking at books, or by
reading books from a young age, the more likely she is to read as she
grows older, assuming the experience was positive (e.g., Massaro, 2017;
Payne, Whitehurst \& Angell, 1994). Encouraging children to engage
more in such productive activities is especially critical given the
increasing use — even by infants — of mobile devices for non-educational
purposes (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013), and the effect using
these devices has on children’s development of various skills such as
self-regulation (Radesky, Schumacher \& Zuckerman, 2015). 

Past research identified several factors that affect children’s
engagement and motivation. For example, children are usually less
likely to engage when provided external rewards for an otherwise
intrinsically motivated behavior (e.g., Boggiano \& Ruble, 1979;
Greene \& Lepper, 1974; Lepper, Greene \& Nisbett, 1973). In a
classical demonstration, Lepper et al.\ (1973) showed that
preschoolers who were rewarded for coloring, an otherwise
intrinsically motivated activity, were less motivated to continue
coloring compared to children who were not rewarded. Additionally,
presenting engagement in one activity as a means of earning the
opportunity to engage in a second activity decreases preschoolers’
motivation to engage in the first activity that was presented as the
means (e.g., Galloway, Fiorito, Francis \& Birch, 2006; Lepper,
Sagotsky, Dafoe \& Greene, 1982).  For example, Lepper et al.\ (1982)
showed that presenting one coloring task as a means to earn the
opportunity to engage in another coloring task decreased children’s
engagement in the coloring task that was presented as the means.

A significant factor that has been shown to increase children’s
motivation in many contexts is the mere act of offering children a
choice (see Katz \& Assor, 2007, for a review).  For example, Iyengar
and Lepper (1999) found that seven- to nine-year-old children were more
motivated to work on solving a puzzle after choosing what puzzle to
solve compared to those whom the experimenter assigned a puzzle. This
effect was stronger among European American children than among Asian
American children, who were actually most motivated when they were
assigned a puzzle their mother chose. Cordova and Lepper (1996) found
that elementary school children were more motivated to play math games
after choosing the icon representing them on the game board, even
though the choice of the icon was incidental to the playing task
itself. In more academic settings, elementary school children were more
engaged and performed better after choosing what topic to write about
compared to children who were assigned a topic, even when including the
measured level of interest in the topic in the analysis (Reynolds \&
Symons, 2001).

The current paper goes beyond looking at how giving children a choice
affects their engagement and motivation, and looks at how the number of
options in the choice set affects children’s level of engagement with
their chosen option. I define engagement as the amount of time children
interact with the chosen option.  Understanding how the size of the
assortment from which children are choosing affects their engagement is
important because when children make choices, such as which book to
read, which game to play, or which toy to ask to purchase, they often
choose from assortments that vary in size. Understanding the effect of
assortment size on engagement not only contributes to our understanding
of young children’s decision-making, but also has important practical
implications for determining the optimal assortment size to offer
children if we want to increase their engagement with desirable
activities, such as reading, or decrease their engagement with less
desirable activities, such as video games. To that end, this paper
studies preschoolers (ages 4-5 years old) in order to understand how to
affect their engagement even from a young age.

Ample research has looked at the effect of assortment size on adults’
behavior (see Chernev, Böckenholt \& Goodman, 2015, for a recent
meta-analysis; see also Scheibehenne, Greifender \& Todd, 2010, for
another meta-analysis finding an overall low effect size of assortment
size). The studies that report an effect of assortment size find
overall that choosing from a large versus small set can be
de-motivating and leads to less satisfaction (Botti \& Iyengar, 2004),
an increased likelihood of experiencing regret (Inbar, Bottie \& Hanko,
2011), and an increased likelihood of deferring choice altogether
(Iyengar \& Lepper, 2000). 

Little research has looked at the effect of assortment size on
engagement with the chosen option, that is, individuals’ level of
engagement with the option they choose from a small versus a large set,
as measured by how much time they spend with the chosen option. Related
research finds individuals are less creative when they choose from a
large rather than small number of options (Sellier \& Dahl, 2011), and
they perform worse on a writing task after choosing from a large versus
small set of topics  (Iyengar \& Lepper, 2000, Study 2). Specifically,
in Iyengar and Lepper’s study, participants chose a topic to write an
essay about, either from 6 or 30 topics. Those who chose from among the
30 topics performed worse than those who chose from among the 6 topics,
as rated by independent judges. Moreover, little research has looked at
the effect of assortment size on children’s decision-making in general
and on engagement in particular (for related research on the decision
strategies school-age children use, see Bereby-Meyer, Assor \& Katz,
2004; Davidson, 1991; and Gregan-Paxton \& John, 1997).

The size of the set children choose from can affect their engagement
with the option they choose through several routes. Clearly, choosing
from the large set is more difficult compared to choosing from the
small set, especially for preschoolers (who are the focus of this
paper), given their developing abilities (Chaplin \& Norton, 2015;
Flavell, 1963; Ginsburg \& Opper, 1988) and the type of decision
strategies they tend to use (John, 1999). If children indeed exert more
resources at the choice stage when choosing from the large set, they
are expected to have fewer resources to interact with the option they
choose from the large versus the small set when offered the chance to
interact with it immediately after making the choice. Therefore, they
are expected to engage for a shorter time with the option they choose
from the large set.

\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.05} \large\normalsize 

Additionally, choosing from the large set generates a higher number of
counterfactuals to consider. Specifically, when choosing from the large
set, the decision maker forgoes a larger number of options, which in
turn can lead to greater regret (e.g., Connolly \& Zeelenberg, 2002),
even among children as young as four years old, who are already capable
of imagining counterfactuals and experiencing regret (Beck, Robinson,
Carrol \& Apperly, 2006; Weisberg \& Beck, 2012; although O’Connor,
McCormack \& Feeney, 2012, who used a different task, found that
regret emerges among slightly older kids). As a result, children are
expected to engage less with the option they choose from the large set,
because they might continue thinking of the other options they had to
forego.

At the same time, choosing from the large set can be a more engaging
experience, especially for young children, who often rely on the size
of objects and other visual cues when making judgments (John, 1999).
Specifically, young children favor larger products or assortments even
at the expense of choosing a more preferred item. For example, when
asked to choose a hypothetical snack for a friend, kindergartners, but
not older children, chose the snack that contained the highest number
of pieces, even though all of them were of the least favored snack
type (22 pieces of licorice), over a snack that contained fewer pieces
but of more favorable types (5 pieces chocolate pieces and 5 pieces of
caramel; Wartella, Daniel, Scott, Jacob \& Allison, 1979). Thus,
preference for size can override preference for other features such as
preferred type of snack or importance of attributes. (When size was
held equal, these kindergarteners did choose the snack of the
preferred type, indicating that they do understand what preferences
are.)

\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip=true]{fig1.eps}
\caption*{Figure 1: Choice sets used in Study 1 and Study 2.}
\end{figure*}

Given preschoolers’ preference for larger items and assortments (which
is not necessarily unique to children and can be found even in animals
[Hutchinson, 2005]), preschoolers are more likely to prefer choosing
from the large set and to find choosing to be a more engaging
experience in and of itself, whereas they are more likely to find
choosing from the small set to be less engaging. As a result, they will
be less likely to satisfy their play needs after choosing from the
small set, and will engage longer with the option they choose from the
small set.

Finally, when choosing from the large set, children have a higher chance
of finding the optimal option, only because more options are available,
which increases the likelihood of finding a close match to their
preferences (e.g., Baumol \& Ide, 1956). As such, this process could
actually lead to more engagement with the option they choose from the
large set, because this option better matches their preferences.

The studies described next test how four- to five-year-old children
perceive small versus large choice sets, and how the size of the choice
set affects their engagement with the chosen option. The first study
tests whether children indeed perceive the large set as more engaging
and fun to choose from, but also more difficult to choose from. Studies
2 and 3 test whether children engage longer with the option they choose
from the large or the small set. Study 2 does so in the context of
choosing a book to look at, and Study 3 does so in the context of
choosing a game to play with. Given that choosing from the large set is
more difficult, generates more counterfactuals, and yet represents a
more engaging task in and of itself, I expect to find that children
will engage less with the option they choose from the large set.

All studies described below were conducted in a pre-school and involved
individual sessions in which children interacted with an experimenter
who was blind to the research hypothesis. In post-study debriefing, the
experimenter confirmed she did not guess the research hypothesis. All
children in the relevant age group whose parents signed consent forms
and were present at the preschool when the study was conducted were
invited to participate.

\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.00} \large\normalsize 

\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip=true]{fig2.eps}
\caption*{Figure 2: Choice sets used in Study 1 and Study 3.}
\end{figure*}

\section{Study 1: Children prefer to choose from larger sets}

This study tests whether preschoolers think choosing from a large set is
more fun than choosing from a small set, and whether they would prefer
to choose from a large set, but at the same time think choosing from
the large set would be more difficult. 

\subsection{Method }

Forty-three children (mean age = 61 months, STD = 3.5, 42\% male)
participated individually in the experiment.  The experimenter first
asked the child to sit at the experiment table, where she and the child
played some introductory games, unrelated to the main experiment. She
then invited the child to move to another area of the room to complete
the main part of the experiment.

There, the experimenter showed the child two sets of books on one table
(one set contained two books and the other set contained seven books)
and two sets of games on another table (one set contained two games and
the other set contained six games). Order of presentation (books first
vs.\ games first) and location of the sets (small set to the left vs.
large set to the left) were counterbalanced. I found no order or
location effects. 

The book sets contained Curious George books of the same length (24
pages) and with a similar appearance, yet each featured a unique
picture and subtitle on the cover page (see Figure 1). For the games
sets, each game contained building blocks of similar colors that were
placed in a clear bag (see Figure 2). Given the fixed size of the bag
and the different size of the building blocks of the different games,
each bag contained a different number of pieces, ranging between 22 and
40. Most games used red, yellow, green, and blue blocks. One game did
not contain green pieces, so purple pieces were used instead, and
another game did not contain red pieces, so orange pieces were used
instead. See Figure 2 for details on how many blocks and what colors
were used for each game.  

\pagebreak

When presented with the two sets of books, the experimenter first asked
the child the following questions: (1) “Do you think it is easier to
choose a book from here, or from here?” (2) “Do you think it is more
fun to choose from here, or from here?” and  (3) “If you could, would
you want to choose a book from here, or from here?” The experimenter
then repeated the procedure with the two sets of games. In the
reverse-order condition, the experimenter first asked about the games
and then about the books. Children did not play with any of the games
and did not look at any of the books. They just pointed at the set they
thought would be easier to choose from (question 1), the set they
thought would be more fun to choose from (question 2), and the set they
wanted to choose from (question 3).

We recorded the child’s answers to all questions. At the end of this
task, the experimenter invited the child to go back to sit at the main
experiment table, where the child completed some unrelated tasks,
received a thank you gift, and then returned to her classroom. 


% Figure 1: Choice sets used in Study 1 and Study 2
% \begin{table}[t]
% \raggedright
% \begin{tabular}{|llllllll|}

% \midrule

%  &  & \includegraphics[width=0.7508in,height=0.7508in]{tmp1-img1.jpg}  & &  &  & \\
%  &  &  &  &  &  &  & \\
% & \includegraphics[width=0.7484in,height=0.7484in]{tmp1-img4.jpg}  & \includegraphics[width=0.7484in,height=0.75in]{tmp1-img5.jpg}  & \includegraphics[width=0.7492in,height=0.75in]{tmp1-img6.jpg}  &  & \includegraphics[width=0.7508in,height=0.7508in]{tmp1-img8.jpg}  & \centering 
% \includegraphics[width=0.7516in,height=0.75in]{tmp1-img9.jpg} \\\midrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}
% {\centering
% Figure 2: Choice sets used in Study 1 and Study 3

% \begin{table}[t]
% \raggedright
% \begin{tabular}{|lllllll|}
% \midrule
%  &  & \includegraphics[width=0.7484in,height=0.75in]{tmp1-img10.jpg}  & \includegraphics[width=0.7484in,height=0.7492in]{tmp1-img11.jpg}  &  & \\
%  &  &  &  &  &  & \\
% \includegraphics[width=0.7492in,height=0.75in]{tmp1-img12.jpg}  & \includegraphics[width=0.7508in,height=0.75in]{tmp1-img13.jpg}  & \includegraphics[width=0.7484in,height=0.7492in]{tmp1-img14.jpg}  & \includegraphics[width=0.7484in,height=0.75in]{tmp1-img15.jpg}  & \includegraphics[width=0.7492in,height=0.7492in]{tmp1-img16.jpg}  & \centering 
% \includegraphics[width=0.75in,height=0.7492in]{tmp1-img17.jpg} \\
%  &  & \centering Yellow, Blue, Orange, Green\\\midrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}

\subsection{Results and Discussion}

Overall, children thought choosing from the small set would be easier
but choosing from the large set would be more fun, and they would have
preferred to choose from the large set. Specifically, 67\% said
choosing from the two-book set would be easier (\textit{p} = .016,
one-tailed, binomial tests here and below against 50\%), 74\% said
choosing from the seven-book set would be more fun (\textit{p}
{\textless} .005, one-tailed), and 77\% said they would have preferred
to choose from the larger, seven-book set (\textit{p} {\textless}
.001, one-tailed). Similarly, 67\% said they thought choosing from the
two-game set would be easier (\textit{p} = .016, one-tailed), 77\%
said they thought choosing from the six-game set would be more fun
(\textit{p} {\textless} .001, one-tailed), and 84\% said they would
have preferred choosing from the six-game set (\textit{p} {\textless}
.001, one-tailed). Taken together, these results indicate that children find
choosing from a large set to be more engaging, even though doing so is
more difficult.

\section{Study 2: Children look longer at books they choose from a small
set}

Study 2 tests whether children are more engaged with a book they choose
from a small versus large set. Children chose a book to look at either
from a small set (two books) or a large set (seven books), and I
measured how long they looked at the book they chose.

\subsection{Method}

\begin{table*}[t!]\centering
\caption*{Table 1: Number of children (percentages) choosing each option by
condition (Study 2). See Figure 1 for pictures of the books.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l*{7}{C{.75in}}C{.4in}@{}}\toprule
 & Curious George and the Birthday Surprise & Curious George’s
Dream & Curious George Goes to a Costume Party & Curious George’s First Day of School & Curious George and the 
Puppies & Curious George  Takes a Train  & Curious George  in the Snow & Total\\\midrule
Small set & 2 (9.5\%) & 0 {\ } (0\%) & 3 (14\%) & 4(19\%) & 4 (19\%) & 3 (14\%) & 5 (24\%) & 21\\
Large set & 1 {\ } (5\%) & 2 (9.5\%) & 5 (24\%) & 4 (19\%) & 2 (9.5\%) & 2 (9.5\%) & 6 (29\%) & 21\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

Forty-two children (mean age = 63.76 months, STD = 4.73, 48\% male)
participated individually in the study. As in Study 1, the experimenter
asked the child to sit at the experiment table, and played some
introductory games, unrelated to the main experiment, with her. She
then invited the child to move to another table to choose a book to
look at (these children were not reading yet). Children were randomly
assigned to one of two conditions: about half the children chose from
among seven books, and the remaining chose between two books. Those
choosing between two books were randomly assigned to one of the
possible 21 pairs created by choosing two of seven options. Because
this condition contained 21 children, each pair was assigned to exactly
one child. The choice sets contained the same books described in study
1 (see also Figure 1).

In both conditions, the experimenter explained the task to the children:
“You see here different books. You can choose one book to look at. You
also get to take home the book you choose.” After choosing a book, the
children could look at it for as long as they wanted. Specifically, the
experimenter told the child, “Great; now you can sit here and look at
the book you chose. Let me know when you are done.” Children could look
only at the book they chose, even though the other books remained near
them. None of the children asked to look at another book during the
time they were looking at the book they had chosen or when they were
done looking at it. We recorded how long the child took to choose a
book and how long she looked at it. 

The child told the experimenter when she was done looking at the book.
The experimenter then invited the child to go back to sit at the main
experiment table, where the child completed some unrelated tasks,
received a thank you gift, and then returned to her classroom. The
experimenter then prepared the choice set for the next child.

\subsection{Results and Discussion}

Given the skewness of the time variable, I use log time throughout the
analysis here and in Study 3. In all cases, I obtain similar results
when using the raw data. Consistent with my prediction of increased
engagement after choosing from the small set, I find children looked
longer at the book they chose from the small set compared to the book
they chose from the large set (M\textsubscript{small} = 4.8,
STD\textsubscript{small} = .404, 95\% CI [4.63, 4.97];
M\textsubscript{large} = 4.38, STD\textsubscript{large }= .67, 95\% CI
[4.09, 4.66], \textit{t}(39) = 2.465, \textit{p} = .018; d = 0.753;
log of time in seconds is reported).\footnote{ I obtain similar
  results using the raw means (M\textsubscript{small} = 131.67,
  STD\textsubscript{small} = 54.65, 95\% CI [108.29, 155.04];
  M\textsubscript{large} = 95.67, STD\textsubscript{large }= 51.35,
  95\% CI [73.70, 117.63]; \textit{t} (1, 39) = 2.29, \textit{p} =
  .027, d = 0.68; time reported in seconds).}

This analysis takes into account reading level as rated by the
children’s teachers. Specifically, I asked the teachers to rate
children’s reading levels on a 5-point scale (1=\textit{low level},
5=\textit{high level}). This covariate did not have a significant
effect on looking time (\textit{p} {\textgreater} .25). The effect of
condition on looking time is significant even without including reading
level as a covariate (\textit{t}(40) = 2.42, \textit{p} = .020).

To also take into account the choices children made, I calculated a
popularity variable, namely, the number of times each book was chosen
across both conditions and across all participants. For example, a
child who chose the book “Curious George and the Puppies” received the
value “6” for the popularity variable because this book was chosen six
times across all children (see Table 1). When I also include the
popularity variable in the model, I find it had no effect on looking
time (\textit{p} {\textgreater} .25), and the effect of condition on
looking time remained significant (\textit{t} (38) = 2.46, \textit{p} =
.018). Note that overall, children made similar choices across the two
conditions (see Table 1). 

As a side note, children took longer to choose from the large versus
the small set (M\textsubscript{large} = 2.47, STD\textsubscript{large
}= 1.08, 95\% CI [2.00, 2.93]; M\textsubscript{small} = 1.43,
STD\textsubscript{small} = 0.94; 95\% CI [1.03, 1.83]; \textit{t} (40)
= 3.33, \textit{p} {\textless} .005, d = 1.03; log of time in seconds
is reported).\footnote{ I obtain similar results using the raw means
  (M\textsubscript{large} = 20.24, STD\textsubscript{large }= 27.30,
  95\% CI [8.678, 31.79]; M\textsubscript{small} = 6.40,
  STD\textsubscript{small} = 6.96; 95\% CI [3.43, 9.38]; \textit{t}
  (40) = 2.25, \textit{p} = .030, d = 0.69; time reported in
  seconds).} This finding is consistent with the claim that choosing
from the large set is possibly a harder task, but also possibly a more
engaging task. When also including the popularity variable as defined
above in the model, I find it had no effect on choosing time
(\textit{p} {\textgreater} .25), and the effect of condition on
choosing time remains significant (\textit{t} (39) = 3.29, \textit{p}
{\textless} .005). Finally, choosing time and looking time were not
correlated (\textit{p} {\textgreater} .25).

\section{Study 3: Children play long longer with games they choose from
the small set}

This study has two goals. First, it attempts to replicate the results of
Study 2 in a different context, where children are choosing which game
to play with. We presented children with a small set of games (two
games) or a large set of games (six games), and they were allowed to
choose one game to play with. We measured how long the children played
with the games they chose.

Second, this study tests whether the effect of the choice-set size
replicates when the dependent variable is not engagement, measured in
time, but rather food consumption. Children’s motivation to eat is
largely affected by how tasty the food is and how hungry they are.
Cognitive resources, which could be reduced after choosing from the
large set, should not affect how much they eat. Similarly, engagement
during the choice stage, which is also affected by the size of the
choice set, should not affect the amount they eat. Therefore, the size
of the set children are choosing from should not affect how much of
their chosen snack they eat. To test this hypothesis, children in this
study also chose a snack to eat either from a small set (two types of
crackers) or a large set (six types of crackers), and we measured how
much of their chosen snack they ate.

\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip=true]{fig3.eps}
\caption*{Figure 3: Choice sets used in Study 3.}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Method} 

Fifty-nine children (mean age = 56.97 months, STD = 3.94, 56\% male)
participated individually in the experiment. As in previous studies,
the experimenter first asked the child to sit at the experiment table
where she played some introductory games, unrelated to the main
experiment, with the child. She then invited the child to move to the
carpet area to choose a game to play. Children were randomly assigned
to one of two conditions: about half the children chose from among six
building games, and the remaining chose between two building games.
Those choosing between two games were randomly assigned to one of the
possible 15 pairs created by choosing two out of six options. Given
that there were 28 children in this condition, each pair was assigned
to one, two, or three children. In both conditions, the experimenter
explained the task to the children: “You see here different games. You
can choose one game to play with.” The choice set contained the games
used in Study 1 (see Figure 2). 

\begin{table*}[t]\centering
\caption*{Table 2: Number of children (percentages) choosing each option by
condition (Study 2). See Figure 2 for pictures of the games.}
\begin{tabular}{l*{6}{C{.75in}}C{.4in}}\toprule
 & Game 1 & Game 2 & Game 3 & Game 4 & Game 5 & Game 6  & Total\\\midrule
Small set & 7 (25\%) & 2 {\ } (7\%) & 5 (18\%) & 0 {\ } (0\%) & 5 (18\%) & 9
(32\%) & 28\\
Large set & 8 (26\%) & 2 {\ } (6\%) & 6 (19\%) & 3 (10\%) & 8 (26\%) & 4
(13\%) & 31\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

After the child chose a game, she could play with it for as long as she
wanted. Specifically, the experimenter opened the bag with the game the
child chose, gave it the child, and said, “Great; now you can sit here
and play with the game, and build whatever you want. Let me know when
you are done. You do not need to clean up when you are done — just leave
it all here.” The bags of the other games were still near the area
where the child was sitting, but the child was playing only with the
game she had chosen. None of the children asked to play with another
game during the time they were playing with the game they had chosen or
after they were done playing with it. Note that children in this
preschool are used to playing with one toy while having other toys
around them. For example, children are sometimes allowed to play in one
area, such as the “dramatic play” area, but are not allowed to play in
the adjacent play area, such as the “blocks” area, that may be closed
for playing at that given time.

We recorded how long the child took to choose a game and how long the
child played with the game. When the child was done playing, she told
the experimenter she was done. The experimenter then invited the child
to go back to sit at the main experiment table, where the child
completed some unrelated tasks. Then the experimenter invited the child
to move to another table where she offered the child a snack to eat.
Children were again randomly assigned to one of two conditions: about
half the children chose from among six types of crackers, and the
remaining chose between two types of crackers. Those choosing between
two types of crackers were randomly assigned to one of the possible 15
pairs created by choosing two out of six options, such that each pair
was assigned to one or two children. In both conditions, the
experimenter explained the task to the children: “We now have a snack
for you to eat. You see here different crackers. You can choose which
ones you want to eat.”  The choice sets contained different types of
Goldfish crackers (Xtra Cheddar, Original, Parmesan, Pizza, Pretzel,
and Wholegrain), served in bowls, each containing 80 grams of crackers.
To identify which crackers were in each bowl, an image of a bag of
crackers was placed next to each bowl (see Figure 3). The sample size
for the crackers task was smaller (N=44), because some children did not
want to eat, some had allergies, and some didn’t have enough time to
complete this task, because they had to go back to their classroom for
pre-scheduled activities, such as swim class.

% \begin{table*}[t]
% {\centering
% \caption*{Figure 3: Choice sets used in Study 3.}
% \begin{tabular}{|ccccccc|}
% \midrule
% Example of a two-crackers set &  &  & Original & Pretzel &  & \\
%  &  &  & 
% \includegraphics[width=0.6508in,height=1.0008in]{tmp1-img18.jpg}  & 
% \includegraphics[width=0.6193in,height=1.0008in]{tmp1-img19.jpg}  &  & \\
% The six-crackers set & Xtra Cheddar & Original & Parmesan & Pizza & Pretzel & Wholegrain\\
%  &  \includegraphics[width=0.5756in,height=1in]{tmp1-img20.jpg}  & 
% \includegraphics[width=0.6508in,height=1.0008in]{tmp1-img21.jpg}  & 
% \includegraphics[width=0.6083in,height=1.0008in]{tmp1-img22.jpg}  & 
% \includegraphics[width=0.6583in,height=1.0008in]{tmp1-img23.jpg}  & 
% \includegraphics[width=0.6193in,height=1.0008in]{tmp1-img24.jpg}  & 
% \includegraphics[width=0.589in,height=1.0008in]{tmp1-img25.jpg}
% \\\midrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table*}

When the child said she was done eating, she returned to the main
experiment table, where she received a thank you gift for
participating. She then returned to her classroom. The experimenter
then disassembled the construction the child had built, returned the
blocks to the bag, prepared the choice set for the next child, measured
the weight of the crackers that were left in the bowl in order to
calculate how much of the crackers she ate (measured in grams), and
prepared the choice set for the next child.

\subsection{Results and Discussion}

\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.025} \large\normalsize 

Replicating Study 2’s results, children played longer with the game
they chose from the small set compared to the game they chose from the
large set (M\textsubscript{small} = 5.94, STD\textsubscript{small} =
.77, 95\% CI [5.65, 6.22]; M\textsubscript{large} = 5.23,
STD\textsubscript{large }= .69, 95\% CI [4.99, 5.48]; \textit{t} (56)
= 3.66, \textit{p} {\textless} .001, d = 0.97; log of time in seconds
is reported).\footnote{ I obtain similar results using the raw means
  (M\textsubscript{small} = 485.71, STD\textsubscript{small} = 327.2,
  95\% CI [364.51, 606.91]; M\textsubscript{large} = 229.87,
  STD\textsubscript{large }= 138.50, 95\% CI [181.11, 278.63];
  \textit{t} (56) = 4.02, \textit{p} {\textless} .001, d = 1.04; time
  reported in seconds).}  Given that the games differed in how many
pieces the bag contained, the analysis using playing time as the
dependent variable (both log and raw) also included the number of
pieces as a covariate.  This covariate had no effect on playing time
(\textit{p} {\textgreater} .25). The effect of condition on looking
time is significant even without including the number of pieces in the
model (\textit{t }(57) = 3.66, \textit{p} {\textless} .005).

To also take into account the choices children made, I calculated a
popularity variable as in Study 2, namely, the number of times each
game was chosen across both conditions and across all participants.
When I also include the popularity in the model, the effect of
condition on playing time remains significant (\textit{t} (56) = 3.45,
\textit{p} {\textless} .001). The effect of popularity is also
significant (\textit{t }(56) = 2.58, \textit{p} = .013), such that
children played longer with the more popular games.\footnote{ Since
  popularity does affect playing time, a possible concern is that the
  small set led to choice of less popular games (as the more popular
  games may have not been available), which in turn might have
  affected play time. However, this is not the case, as the more
  popular games were chosen in the small set condition (M = 12.5, STD
  = 2.74) compared to the large set condition (M = 11.58, STD = 3.86),
  though this difference is not significant (\textit{t} (57) = 1.04,
  \textit{p} {\textgreater} .25).} Note that overall, children made
similar choices across the two conditions (Table 2).

\begin{table*}[t]\centering
\caption*{Table 3: Number of children (percentages) choosing each cracker type by
condition (Study 3). See Figure 3 for pictures of the crackers.}
\begin{tabular}{l*{6}{C{.75in}}C{.4in}}\toprule
 & Extra cheddar & Original & Parmesan & Pizza & Pretzel & Whole grain & Total\\\midrule
Small set & 5 (24\%) & 6 (29\%) & 2 (9.5\%) & 2 (9.5\%) & 2 (9.5\%) & 4
(19\%) & 21\\
Large set & 3 (13\%) & 2 {\ } (9\%) & 2 {\ } (9\%) & 7 (30\%) & 5 (22\%) & 4
(17\%) & 23\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

Also replicating Study 2’s results, children took longer to choose
from the large versus the small set (M\textsubscript{large} = 1.52,
STD\textsubscript{large }= 0.67, 95\% CI [1.28, 1.76];
M\textsubscript{small} = .85, STD\textsubscript{small} = .73, 95\% CI
[0.58, 1.12]; \textit{t} (57) = 3.67, \textit{p} {\textless} .005, d =
0.95; log time is reported and analyzed).\footnote{ I obtain similar
  results when using the raw means (M\textsubscript{large} = 5.71,
  STD\textsubscript{large }= 3.99, 95\% CI [4.304, 7.115];
  M\textsubscript{small} = 3.29, STD\textsubscript{small} = 3.95, 95\%
  CI [1.82, 4.75]; \textit{t} (57) = 2.34, \textit{p} = .023, d =
  0.61; time reported in seconds).} When also including the popularity
variable as defined above in the model, I find it has no effect on
choosing time (\textit{p} {\textgreater} .25), and the effect of
condition on choosing time remains significant (\textit{t} (56) =
3.59, \textit{p} {\textless} .005). Finally, log of choosing time and
log of playing time were correlated (\textit{r} = --.32, \textit{p} =
.014), but this correlation becomes non-significant when controlling
for assortment size (\textit{r} = --.16, \textit{p} {\textgreater} .2).

When choosing a snack to eat, children again took longer to choose
from the large versus the small set (M\textsubscript{large} = 1.58,
STD\textsubscript{large }= 1.02, 95\% CI [1.17, 2.00];
M\textsubscript{small} = .99, STD\textsubscript{small} = .46, 95\% CI
[0.79, 1.19]; \textit{t} (42) = 2.44, \textit{p} = .019, d = 0.75; log
of time in seconds is reported),\footnote{ I obtain similar results
  when using raw means (M\textsubscript{large} = 7.43,
  STD\textsubscript{large }= 6.34, 95\% CI [4.84, 10.02];
  M\textsubscript{small} = 3.00, STD\textsubscript{small} = 1.48, 95\%
  CI [2.37, 3.63]; \textit{t} (42) = 3.12, \textit{p} {\textless}
  .005, d = 0.96; time reported in seconds).} thus replicating
previous results.  However, the size of the choice set had no effect
on the amount of crackers children ate (M\textsubscript{small} = 2.79,
STD\textsubscript{small} = .907, 95\% CI [2.40, 3.18];
M\textsubscript{large} = 2.69, STD\textsubscript{large }= .85, 95\% CI
[2.34, 3.04]; \textit{p} {\textgreater} .25, d = 0.113; log of
consumption in grams is reported).\footnote{ I obtain similar results
  when using the raw means (M\textsubscript{small} = 23.7,
  STD\textsubscript{small} = 21.9, 95\% CI [14.34, 33.08];
  M\textsubscript{large} = 20.9, STD\textsubscript{large }= 19.2, 95\%
  CI [13.1, 28.81]; \textit{p} {\textgreater} .25, d = 0.136;
  measurements are in grams).} When also taking into account the
popularity of the snack chosen, as defined previously, this variable
had no effect on consumption, and the effect of condition on
consumption remained non-significant (\textit{p}’s {\textgreater} .25;
see Table 3 for the choices children made across conditions). As a
side note, log play time and log amount consumed were not correlated
(\textit{p} {\textgreater} .25).

\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip=true]{fig4.eps}
\caption*{Figure 4: Choice sets used in the follow-up study.}
\end{figure*}

To further understand the null effect, I compare the Bayes Factor (e.g.,
Kass \& Rafftery, 1995) in this task with the one in the games task,
and find the Bayes Factor in the crackers task (0.315) is much lower
compared to the games task (51.49), reinforcing the conclusion of a
null effect in the crackers task. Moreover, there is very little
overlap in the confidence intervals for the effect size of the crackers
task (--0.44, 0.64) and for the games task (0.32, 1.08), which is
another indication that these tasks are indeed different.

To further understand the null effect of assortment size on consumption,
I conducted a follow-up study in which I offered 37 children (4.5--5.5
years old) the opportunity to choose a 180-gram yogurt cup to eat,
either from a small set (two flavors) or a large set (seven flavors).
The possible flavors were banana, blueberry, cherry, peach, raspberry,
strawberry, and vanilla (see Figure 4). The procedure was similar to
the one used in the crackers task described above. Replicating the
snacks results, I again find no effect of assortment size on
consumption (M\textsubscript{small} = 4.19, STD\textsubscript{small} =
1.11, 95\% CI [3.69, 4.69]; M\textsubscript{large} = 4.07,
STD\textsubscript{large }= 1.15, 95\% CI [3.54, 4.61]; \textit{p}
{\textgreater} .25, d = 0.11, Bayes Factor = 0.332; log consumption in
grams is reported and analyzed).\footnote{ I obtain similar results
using the raw means (M\textsubscript{small} = 95.47,
STD\textsubscript{small} = 56.9, 95\% CI [69.88, 121.05];
M\textsubscript{large} = 86.5, STD\textsubscript{large }= 55.1, 95\% CI
[61.04, 111.95]; \textit{p} {\textgreater} .25; d = 0.16; Bayes factor
= 0.349; measurements are in grams).}  Taken together, these results
suggest the set size affects engagement as measured in play time, but
does not seem to affect consumption as measured by how much the child
ate.

% \begin{table*}[t]
% \caption*{Figure 4: Choice sets used in the follow-up study.}
% \begin{tabular}{|llllllll|}
% \midrule
%  &  & \includegraphics[width=0.652in,height=0.9272in]{tmp1-img26.png}  & \includegraphics[width=0.6937in,height=0.9362in]{tmp1-img27.png}  &  &  & \\
%  &  &  &  &  &  &  & \\
% \includegraphics[width=0.8083in,height=0.9374in]{tmp1-img28.png}  & \includegraphics[width=0.6937in,height=0.9362in]{tmp1-img29.png}  & & \includegraphics[width=0.6665in,height=1.0035in]{tmp1-img31.png}  & \includegraphics[width=0.652in,height=0.9272in]{tmp1-img32.png}  & \includegraphics[width=0.6299in,height=0.8736in]{tmp1-img33.png}  & \centering 
% \includegraphics[width=0.6862in,height=0.9374in]{tmp1-img34.png}
% \\\midrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table*}

%\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0} \large\normalsize 

\section{General Discussion}

Three studies show preschoolers think choosing from a large versus small
set is more fun yet more difficult, but they are more engaged with the
options they choose from the small versus large set. Specifically, when
choosing from the small set, which contained two options, children
spent more time looking at the book they chose and played longer with
the game they chose, compared to when they chose from the large set,
which contained six or seven options. The size of the choice set did
not affect food consumption, as shown in the crackers and yogurt tasks.
These results suggest that although giving children choices could be a
valuable approach in increasing motivation in general (Katz \& Assor,
2007), limiting the choice set to a few options at a time might be
beneficial toward increasing the time they spend with the option they
choose (see Grant \& Schwartz, 2011, for a discussion on how
introducing limitations can improve well-being in general). This is not
to say that caregivers such as parents or preschool teachers should
reduce the total number of educational games or books present; rather,
they could facilitate the choice process by narrowing the choice set
presented to the child to a smaller set.

Future research can look further at the underlying mechanism of the
effect of the choice-set size on engagement. I have argued children are
more engaged with the option they choose from the small set due to the
increased difficulty in choosing from the large set, the increased
number of counterfactuals generated when choosing from the large set,
and the increased engagement children experience at the choice stage
when choosing from the large set. Although all forces might operate
simultaneously, one force might dominate the others under certain
circumstances. For example, when the options are extremely similar to
one another, such that choosing from among them is even more difficult,
choice difficulty and the increased number of counterfactuals might be
the factors leading to decreased engagement after choosing from the
large set, and not the increased engagement with the choice set itself.

The current research studied the effect of assortment size on
preschoolers’ behavior, but how assortment size affects engagement
among older children and adults is unclear. For example, an important
difference between preschoolers and adults is their overall
information-processing methods and memory capabilities (Gathercole,
1998; John, 1999), which could in turn determine at what point a high
number of options becomes large enough to impose difficulty at the
choice stage. In the studies reported here, the number of options in
the large set was six or seven, which is lower than the typical number
of options in large sets in studies with adults. Possibly, with an even
larger number of options offered to children in the large set, the
effects observed in this paper will be stronger as making the choice
becomes more difficult yet possibly even more engaging in and of
itself.

Finally, this paper looked at the short-term effects of choosing from
small versus large sets, by measuring engagement immediately after
making the choice. Long-term effects are probably weaker, such that if
a time delay exists between the choice and the engagement opportunity,
the size of the assortment from which children choose would likely have
a smaller effect on engagement. However, the fact that assortment size
can have an immediate effect on children’s engagement suggests such
subtle manipulations can shape young children’s habits in the present,
which in turn can affect their future behavior and encourage them to
engage longer in productive activities such as reading and playing. The
potential in being able to affect children’s behavior simply by
changing the number of options they view cannot be underestimated.

\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0} \large\normalsize 
\section*{References}
\begin{hangparas}{1em}{1}

American Academy of Pediatrics (2013). Children, adolescents, and
  the media. From the Council on Communications and Media.
\textit{Pediatrics, 132}, 957–961.

Baumol, W. J., \& Ide, E. A. (1956). Variety in retailing.
\textit{Management Science, 3}(October), 93–101.

Beck, S. R., Robinson, E. J., Carroll, D. J., \& Apperly, I. A. (2006).
Children’s thinking about counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as
possibilities. \textit{Child Development}, \textit{77}(2), 413–426.

Bereby-Meyer, Y., Assor, A., \& Katz, I. (2004). Children’s choice
strategies: The effects of age and task demands. \textit{Cognitive
Development}, \textit{19}(1), 127--146.

Boggiano, A. K., \& Ruble, D. N. (1979). Competence and the
overjustiflcation effect: A developmental study. \textit{Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology}, \textit{37}(9), 1462–1468.

Botti, S., \& Iyengar, S. S. (2004). The psychological pleasure and pain
of choosing: When people prefer choosing at the cost of subsequent
outcome satisfaction. \textit{Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology}, \textit{87}(3), 312–326.

Chaplin, L. N., \& Norton, M. I. (2015). Why we think we can’t dance:
Theory of mind and children’s desire to perform. \textit{Child
Development}, \textit{82}(2), 651–658.

Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., \& Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: A
conceptual review and meta-analysis. \textit{Journal of Consumer
Psychology}, \textit{25}(2), 333–358.

Connolly, T., \& Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in decision making.
\textit{Current directions in psychological science}, \textit{11}(6),
212–216.

Cordova, D. I., \& Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the
process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization,
personalization, and choice. \textit{Journal of Educational
Psychology}, \textit{88}(4), 715–730.

Davidson, D. (1991). Children’s decision-making examined with an
information-board procedure. \textit{Cognitive Development},
\textit{6}(1), 77–90.

Flavell, J. H. (1963). \textit{The developmental psychology of Jean
Piaget}. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Galloway, A. T., Fiorito, L. M., Francis, L. A., \& Birch, L. L. (2006).
Finish your soup: Counterproductive effects of pressuring children to
eat on intake and affect. \textit{Appetite}, \textit{46}(3), 318–323.

Gathercole, S. E. (1998). The development of memory. \textit{Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39}(1), 3--27.

Ginsburg, H. P. \& Opper, S. (1988), \textit{Piaget’s theory of
  intellectual development}. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Greene, D., \& Lepper, M. R. (1974). Effects of extrinsic rewards on
children's subsequent intrinsic interest.
\textit{Child Development}, \textit{45}(4), 1141–1145.

Grant, A. M. \& Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The
challenge and opportunity of the Inverted U. \textit{Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6}(1), 61--76.

Gregan-Paxton, J., \& John, D. R. (1997). The emergence of adaptive
decision making in children. \textit{Journal of Consumer Research},
\textit{24}(1), 43–56.

Hutchinson, J. (2005). Is more choice always desirable? Evidence and
arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental
enrichment. \textit{Biological Reviews}, \textit{80}(1), 73--92.

Inbar, Y., Botti, S., \& Hanko, K. (2011). Decision speed and choice
regret: When haste feels like waste. \textit{Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology}, \textit{47}(May), 533–540. 

Iyengar, S. S., \& Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice:
A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. \textit{Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology}, \textit{76}(3), 349–366.

Iyengar, S. S., \& Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating:
Can one desire too much of a good thing? \textit{Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology}, \textit{79}(December), 995–1006.

John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective
look at twenty-five years of research. \textit{Journal of Consumer
Research}, \textit{26}(December), 182–213.

Kass, R. E., \& Rafftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes Factors. \textit{Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 90}(430), 773--95.

Katz, I., \& Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does
not. \textit{Educational Psychology Review}, \textit{19}(4), 429–442.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., \& Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Understanding
children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the
“overjustification” hypothesis.  \textit{Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology}, \textit{28}(1), 129–137.

Lepper, M. R., Sagotsky, G., Dafoe, J. J., \& Greene,
D. (1982). Consequences of superfluous social constraints: Effects of
young children's social inferences and subsequent intrinsic interest.
\textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, \textit{42}(1),
51–65.

Massaro, D. W. (2017). Reading aloud to children: Benefits and
implications for acquiring literacy before schooling
begins. \textit{The American Journal of Psychology, 130}(1), 63--72.

O’Connor, E., McCormack, T., \& Feeney, A. (2012). The development of
regret. \textit{Journal of Experimental Child Psychology},
\textit{111}(1), 120–127.

Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., \& Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of
home literacy environment in the development of language ability in
preschool children from low-income families. \textit{Early Childhood
  Research Quarterly, 9}, 427--440.

\vfill
\break

Radesky, L. S., Schumacher, J., \& Zuckerman, B. (2015). Mobile and
interactive media use by young children: The good, the bad, and the
unknown. \textit{Pediatrics}, \textit{135}(1), 1–3

Reynolds, P. L., \& Symons, S. (2001). Motivational variables and
children's text search. \textit{Journal of Educational
Psychology}, \textit{93}(1), 14–22.

Scheibehenne, B. Greifeneder, R. and Todd, P. M. (2010), Can there ever
be too many options? A meta{}-analytic review of choice overload. 
\textit{Journal of Consumer Research, 37}(3), 409--425.

Sellier, A., \& Dahl, D. W. (2011). Focus! Creative success is enjoyed
through restricted choice. \textit{Journal of Marketing Research},
\textit{48}(December), 996--1007.

Wartella, E., Daniel, B.W., Scott, W., Jacob, S., \& Allison, A. (1979).
The young child as a consumer. In E. Wartella (Ed.), \textit{Children
communicating: Media and development of thought, speech, understanding
}(pp.\ 251–279). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Weisberg, D. P., \& Beck, S. R. (2012). The development of children’s
regret and relief. \textit{Cognition and Emotion}, \textit{26}(5)
820–935.

\end{hangparas}
\end{document}
