pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.11673 · v2 · pith:CDT35GGLnew · submitted 2025-09-15 · 💰 econ.TH

Grabbing the Forbidden Fruit: Restriction-Sensitive Choice

Niels Boissonnet , Alexis Ghersengorin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 22:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.TH
keywords forbidden fruit effectrestriction-sensitive choicechoice reversalsreactance theorycommodity theorynormative welfare analysisbackfire effectsintegration policy
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new choice model explains the forbidden fruit effect through observed reversals when options are removed.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors axiomatize restriction-sensitive choice, a model in which removing an option can reverse an agent's ranking of the remaining ones and thereby increase desire for what is left. This setup rationalizes the forbidden fruit phenomenon while remaining consistent with reactance and commodity explanations from psychology. Because the model's parameters can be recovered directly from choice data on reversals, it supports normative statements about freedom and welfare without extra psychological measures. Readers should care if they want a formal way to evaluate when restrictions backfire or produce unintended policy effects such as resistance to integration measures.

Core claim

We axiomatize a choice model named restriction-sensitive choice (RSC), which rationalizes the forbidden fruit effect and is compatible with the prominent psychological explanations: reactance theory and commodity theory. The model is identifiable from choice data, specifically from the observation of choice reversals caused by the removal of options. We conduct a normative analysis both in terms of the agent's freedom and welfare. We apply our model to shed light on two phenomena: the backfire effect of beliefs and the backlash of integration policies targeted towards minorities.

What carries the argument

The restriction-sensitive choice (RSC) model, which encodes how restrictions alter the relative desirability of remaining options and is pinned down by the pattern of choice reversals after an option is deleted.

If this is right

  • The model permits a formal welfare ranking of menus that accounts for the value agents place on restrictions themselves.
  • Observed choice reversals after removal can be used to recover the strength of the forbidden-fruit response and to forecast policy backlash.
  • The same structure rationalizes why certain beliefs become more entrenched when contradictory information is suppressed.
  • Integration policies that remove or limit options for targeted groups can be evaluated for their unintended effect on the appeal of those groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the model holds, field data on menu changes in markets or regulations could be re-analyzed to detect hidden restriction sensitivity without new surveys.
  • The framework suggests a way to compare the welfare costs of different restriction designs across domains such as product bans or information filters.
  • Extensions could test whether the same reversal patterns appear when restrictions are probabilistic rather than certain.

Load-bearing premise

The forbidden fruit effect and its policy implications can be fully captured by an axiomatic choice model whose parameters are identified solely from observed reversals upon option removal, without needing direct psychological measurements or additional data.

What would settle it

A laboratory experiment in which an option is removed and the resulting choice shifts fail to match the reversals predicted by any fixed set of RSC parameters, or fail to align with independent measures of reactance or perceived scarcity.

read the original abstract

Restricting individuals' access to some opportunities may steer their desire toward their substitutes, a phenomenon known as the forbidden fruit effect. We axiomatize a choice model named restriction-sensitive choice (RSC), which rationalizes the forbidden fruit effect and is compatible with the prominent psychological explanations: reactance theory and commodity theory. The model is identifiable from choice data, specifically from the observation of choice reversals caused by the removal of options. We conduct a normative analysis both in terms of the agent's freedom and welfare. We apply our model to shed light on two phenomena: the backfire effect of beliefs and the backlash of integration policies targeted towards minorities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper axiomatizes a restriction-sensitive choice (RSC) model that rationalizes the forbidden fruit effect, in which restricting access to an option increases its attractiveness relative to substitutes. The model is shown to be compatible with reactance theory and commodity theory, identifiable from observed choice reversals upon option removal, and is used for normative analysis of freedom and welfare before being applied to belief backfire effects and backlash against integration policies.

Significance. If the axiomatization and identification hold, the framework supplies a choice-theoretic foundation for analyzing restriction-induced preference shifts that integrates psychological mechanisms without requiring direct measurement of psychological variables. The identifiability claim from reversal data alone is a notable strength for empirical work, and the normative sections on freedom and welfare could inform policy analysis of restrictions in economic and social settings.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Identification): The claim that RSC parameters are uniquely pinned down by choice reversals upon option removal is load-bearing for the subsequent normative and policy applications, yet the argument does not explicitly rule out alternative mechanisms (e.g., reference-point shifts or belief updating) that can generate identical reversal patterns; without a uniqueness proof or robustness check against these confounds, the welfare and freedom conclusions do not follow directly from the observed data.
  2. [§5] §5 (Normative Analysis): The welfare ranking that treats higher restriction-sensitivity as reducing effective freedom assumes the recovered parameter reflects an intrinsic preference trait rather than a transient response; this step requires additional justification because the identification result in §4 does not distinguish these interpretations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more clearly distinguish the axiomatic contribution from the psychological compatibility claims to avoid any appearance of circularity.
  2. [§3] Notation for the restriction-sensitivity parameter should be introduced once and used consistently across the axiomatization and identification sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. The points raised regarding identification and the normative analysis are important, and we address each one below. We plan to make targeted revisions to clarify and strengthen the relevant sections.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Identification): The claim that RSC parameters are uniquely pinned down by choice reversals upon option removal is load-bearing for the subsequent normative and policy applications, yet the argument does not explicitly rule out alternative mechanisms (e.g., reference-point shifts or belief updating) that can generate identical reversal patterns; without a uniqueness proof or robustness check against these confounds, the welfare and freedom conclusions do not follow directly from the observed data.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need to distinguish RSC from alternative mechanisms that might produce similar choice reversals. The identification result relies on the specific axioms characterizing restriction-sensitive choice, which tie reversals directly to the removal of options in a manner consistent with the forbidden fruit effect and the psychological foundations (reactance and commodity theory). Reference-point shifts or belief updating would generally require additional structure or data (such as reference dependence across all sets or explicit belief measures) that are not implied by the observed reversal patterns alone under our axioms. That said, we agree that an explicit discussion of these confounds would strengthen the paper. In the revision we will add a short subsection in §4 explaining why the axiomatic restrictions rule out or differentiate from these alternatives in the relevant choice environments, along with a brief robustness argument. This constitutes a partial revision, as the core identification theorem itself is unchanged. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (Normative Analysis): The welfare ranking that treats higher restriction-sensitivity as reducing effective freedom assumes the recovered parameter reflects an intrinsic preference trait rather than a transient response; this step requires additional justification because the identification result in §4 does not distinguish these interpretations.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the normative welfare and freedom rankings in §5 interpret the restriction-sensitivity parameter as a stable feature of preferences. The identification result recovers the parameter from reversal data but does not, by itself, separate intrinsic traits from transient responses. To address this, we will revise §5 to explicitly state the maintained assumption that the parameter captures a relatively stable preference characteristic (consistent with the psychological literature on reactance), and we will add a brief discussion of how repeated observations over time could help distinguish stability. We will also qualify the policy implications accordingly. This revision will be incorporated in the next version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in the axiomatic derivation

full rationale

The paper presents an axiomatization of restriction-sensitive choice (RSC) derived from stated choice axioms that rationalize the forbidden fruit effect via observed reversals upon option removal. This follows the standard structure of representation theorems in decision theory, where the model and its identification properties are consequences of the primitives rather than self-definitional or fitted inputs renamed as predictions. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work, or ansatzes smuggled via citation are indicated. The derivation remains self-contained against the choice data and external psychological explanations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on new axioms that encode restriction sensitivity. Because only the abstract is available, the precise axioms cannot be listed; the ledger therefore records the high-level modeling choice rather than enumerated primitives.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Preferences over available sets are sensitive to the removal of options in a manner that increases the relative desirability of remaining alternatives.
    This is the core modeling assumption that generates the forbidden fruit effect as stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5627 in / 1257 out tokens · 54384 ms · 2026-05-21T22:10:42.935328+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdelgadir, A. and V. Fouka (2020). Political secularism and muslim integration in the west: Assessing the effects of the french headscarf ban. American Political Science Review\/ 114\/ (3), 707–723

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Alesina, A. F. and B. Reich (2015). Nation building. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University\/

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Apesteguia, J. and M. Ballester (2015). A measure of rationality and welfare. Journal of Political Economy\/ 123\/ (6), 1278 -- 1310

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Apesteguia, J. and M. A. Ballester (2013). Choice by sequential procedures. Games and Economic Behavior\/ 77\/ (1), 90--99

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Arad, A. and A. Rubinstein (2018). The people’s perspective on libertarian-paternalistic policies. The Journal of Law and Economics\/ 61\/ (2), 311--333

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values\/ (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press

    work page 1963

  7. [7]

    Au, P. H. and K. Kawai (2011). Sequentially rationalizable choice with transitive rationales. Games and Economic Behavior\/ 73\/ (2), 608--614

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Baujard, A. (2007). Conceptions of freedom and ranking opportunity sets. a typology. Homo Oeconomicus\/ 2\/ (24), 1--24

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    Bernheim, B. D. and A. Rangel (2007, May). Toward choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. American Economic Review\/ 97\/ (2), 464--470

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    Bernheim, B. D. and A. Rangel (2008). Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. The foundations of positive and normative economics: A handbook\/ , 155--192

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    Bernheim, B. D. and A. Rangel (2009). Beyond revealed preference: Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 124\/ (1), 51--104

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Bisin, A. and T. Verdier (2001). The economics of cultural transmission and the dynamics of preferences. Journal of Economic theory\/ 97\/ (2), 298--319

    work page 2001

  13. [13]

    Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy\/ 56\/ (1), 23--34

    work page 1948

  14. [14]

    Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press

    work page 1966

  15. [15]

    Brehm, S. S. and J. W. Brehm (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control . Academic Press

    work page 1981

  16. [16]

    Brehm, S. S. and M. Weinraub (1977). Physical barriers and psychological reactance: 2-year-olds' responses to threats to freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\/ 35\/ (11), 830

    work page 1977

  17. [17]

    Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change1. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes , pp.\ 243--275. Academic Press

    work page 1968

  18. [18]

    Bushman, B. J. (2006). Effects of warning and information labels on attraction to television violence in viewers of different ages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology\/ 36\/ (9), 2073--2078

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    Chambers, C. P. and T. Hayashi (2012). Choice and individual welfare. Journal of Economic Theory\/ 147\/ (5), 1818--1849

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Chandrasekher, M. (2018). Informal commitments in planner–doer games. Journal of Economic Theory\/ 173 , 201--230

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Che, Y.-K. and K. Mierendorff (2019, August). Optimal dynamic allocation of attention. American Economic Review\/ 109\/ (8), 2993--3029

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Feddersen, and A

    Cherepanov, V., T. Feddersen, and A. Sandroni (2013). Rationalization. Theoretical Economics\/ 8\/ (3), 775--800

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    Chernoff, H. (1954). Rational selection of decision functions. Econometrica\/ 22 , 422

    work page 1954

  24. [24]

    Dowd, J. J. (1975). Distributive justice and psychological reactance: A convergence of homans and brehm. Pacific Sociological Review\/ 18\/ (4), 421--441

    work page 1975

  25. [25]

    Dutta, R. and S. Horan (2015, November). Inferring rationales from choice: Identification for rational shortlist methods. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics\/ 7\/ (4), 179--201

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality . Harvard university press

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    Farquhar, P. H. and A. R. Pratkanis (1993). Decision structuring with phantom alternatives. Management Science\/ 39\/ (10), 1214--1226

    work page 1993

  28. [28]

    Fouka, V. (2020). Backlash: The unintended effects of language prohibition in us schools after world war i. The Review of Economic Studies\/ 87\/ (1), 204--239

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    De Jong, and J

    Gosselt, J., M. De Jong, and J. Van Hoof (2012, 12). Effects of media ratings on children and adolescents: A litmus test of the forbidden fruit effect. Journal of Communication\/ 62

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2022). What preferences for behavioral welfare economics? Journal of Economic Methodology\/ 29\/ (2), 153--165

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Gul, F. and W. Pesendorfer (2005, 04). The Revealed Preference Theory of Changing Tastes . The Review of Economic Studies\/ 72\/ (2), 429--448

    work page 2005

  32. [32]

    Richter, and M

    Guney, B., M. Richter, and M. Tsur (2018). Aspiration-based choice. Journal of Economic Theory\/ 176 , 935--956

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    Hankin, J. R., I. J. Firestone, J. J. Sloan, J. Ager, A. C. Goodman, R. J. Sokol, and S. S. Martier (1993). The impact of the alcohol warning label on drinking during pregnancy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing\/ 12 , 10 -- 18

    work page 1993

  34. [34]

    Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\/ 65\/ (1), 68--76

    work page 1996

  35. [35]

    Horan, S. (2016). A simple model of two-stage choice. Journal of Economic Theory\/ 162 , 372--406

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Hovland, C. I., I. L. Janis, and H. H. Kelley (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change . Yale University Press New Haven

    work page 1953

  37. [37]

    Mulkens, Y

    Jansen, E., S. Mulkens, Y. Emond, and A. Jansen (2008). From the garden of eden to the land of plenty: Restriction of fruit and sweets intake leads to increased fruit and sweets consumption in children. Appetite\/ 51\/ (3), 570--575

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    Mulkens, and A

    Jansen, E., S. Mulkens, and A. Jansen (2007). Do not eat the red food!: Prohibition of snacks leads to their relatively higher consumption in children. Appetite\/ 49\/ (3), 572--577

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    universal

    Jonas, E., V. Graupmann, D. N. Kayser, M. Zanna, E. Traut-Mattausch, and D. Frey (2009). Culture, self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a “universal” freedom? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\/ 45\/ (5), 1068--1080

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    Jones, P. and R. Sugden (1982). Evaluating choice. International Review of Law and Economics\/ 2\/ (1), 47--65

    work page 1982

  41. [41]

    Rubinstein, and R

    Kalai, G., A. Rubinstein, and R. Spiegler (2002). Rationalizing choice functions by multiple rationales. Econometrica\/ 70\/ (6), 2481--2488

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    Kops, C. (2022). Cluster-shortlisted choice. Journal of Mathematical Economics\/ 102 , 102726

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Kreps, D. M. (1979). A representation theorem for ``preference for flexibility''. Econometrica\/ , 565--577

    work page 1979

  44. [44]

    Levesque, R. J. R. (2018). Forbidden Fruit , pp.\ 1453--1456. Springer International Publishing

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Lleras, J. S., Y. Masatlioglu, D. Nakajima, and E. Y. Ozbay (2017). When more is less: Limited consideration. Journal of Economic Theory\/ 170 , 70--85

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology & Marketing\/ 8\/ (1), 43--57

    work page 1991

  47. [47]

    Manzini, P. and M. Mariotti (2007). Sequentially rationalizable choice. American Economic Review\/ 97\/ (5), 1824--1839

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    Manzini, P. and M. Mariotti (2012). Categorize then choose: Boundedly rational choice and welfare. Journal of the European Economic Association\/ 10\/ (5), 1141--1165

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    Manzini, P. and M. Mariotti (2014). Welfare economics and bounded rationality: the case for model-based approaches. Journal of Economic Methodology\/ 21\/ (4), 343--360

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Nakajima, and E

    Masatlioglu, Y., D. Nakajima, and E. Y. Ozbay (2012). Revealed attention. American Economic Review\/ 102\/ (5), 2183--2205

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    Mazis, M. B., R. B. Settle, and D. C. Leslie (1973). Elimination of phosphate detergents and psychological reactance. Journal of Marketing Research\/ 10\/ (4), 390--395

    work page 1973

  52. [52]

    Nehring, K. and C. Puppe (2002). A theory of diversity. Econometrica\/ 70\/ (3), 1155--1198

    work page 2002

  53. [53]

    Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia , Volume 5038. new york: Basic Books

    work page 1974

  54. [54]

    Nyhan, B. and J. Reifler (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior\/ 32\/ (2), 303--330

    work page 2010

  55. [55]

    Ok, E. A., P. Ortoleva, and G. Riella (2015). Revealed (p) reference theory. American Economic Review\/ 105\/ (1), 299--321

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    Pattanaik, P. K. and Y. Xu (1990). On ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice. Recherches Économiques de Louvain / Louvain Economic Review\/ 56\/ (3/4), 383--390

    work page 1990

  57. [57]

    Pattanaik, P. K. and Y. Xu (1998). On preference and freedom. Theory and Decision\/ 44\/ (2), 173--198

    work page 1998

  58. [58]

    Pattanaik, P. K. and Y. Xu (2000). On diversity and freedom of choice. Mathematical Social Sciences\/ 40\/ (2), 123--130

    work page 2000

  59. [59]

    and C.-F

    Pechmann, C. and C.-F. Shih (1999). Smoking scenes in movies and antismoking advertisements before movies: Effects on youth. Journal of Marketing\/ 63\/ (3), 1--13

    work page 1999

  60. [60]

    Pettibone, J. C. and D. H. Wedell (2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organizational behavior and human decision processes\/ 81\/ (2), 300--328

    work page 2000

  61. [61]

    preference for freedom of choice

    Puppe, C. (1996). An axiomatic approach to “preference for freedom of choice”. Journal of Economic Theory\/ 68\/ (1), 174--199

    work page 1996

  62. [62]

    Rawls, J. (2020). A theory of justice: Revised edition . Harvard university press

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Ridout, S. (2021). Choosing for the right reasons. Unpublished manuscript\/

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Rosenberg, B. and J. Siegel (2018, 12). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science\/ 4 , 281--300

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Rubinstein, A. and Y. Salant (2012). Eliciting welfare preferences from behavioural data sets. The Review of Economic Studies\/ 79\/ (1), 375--387

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    Samuelson, P. A. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumer's behaviour. Economica\/ 5\/ (17), 61--71

    work page 1938

  67. [67]

    Sen, A. (1971). Choice functions and revealed preference. Review of Economic Studies\/ 38\/ (3)

    work page 1971

  68. [68]

    Sen, A. (1988). Freedom of choice: Concept and content. European Economic Review\/ 32

    work page 1988

  69. [69]

    Sen, A. (1993). Markets and freedoms: Achievements and limitations of the market mechanism in promoting individual freedoms. Oxford Economic Papers\/ 45\/ (4), 519--541

    work page 1993

  70. [70]

    Sensenig, J. and J. W. Brehm (1968). Attitude change from an implied threat to attitudinal freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\/ 8\/ (4p1), 324

    work page 1968

  71. [71]

    Sneegas, J. E. and T. A. Plank (1998). Gender differences in pre‐adolescent reactance to age‐categorized television advisory labels. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media\/ 42\/ (4), 423--434

    work page 1998

  72. [72]

    Tyson, C. J. (2013). Behavioral implications of shortlisting procedures. Social Choice and Welfare\/ 41\/ (4), 941--963

    work page 2013

  73. [73]

    Varava, K. A. and B. L. Quick (2015). Adolescents and movie ratings: Is psychological reactance a theoretical explanation for the forbidden fruit effect? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media\/ 59\/ (1), 149--168

    work page 2015

  74. [74]

    Wood, T. and E. Porter (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior\/ 41\/ (1), 135--163

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    Xu, Y. and L. Zhou (2007, 05). Rationalizability of choice functions by game trees. Journal of Economic Theory\/ 134 , 548--556

    work page 2007