We propose a general theoretical model of decision‐rights allocation and choice, formulated in the context of a dynamic psychological game. Decision rights are valued not only instrumentally, i.e. according to the expected utility associated with the achieved outcomes, but also intrinsically, i.e. according to the procedure by which outcomes are achieved. As such procedural motivations, our model introduces freedom, power and interference. We conduct a novel laboratory experiment in which the separate effect of each belief‐dependent preference can be distinguished. We find that the intrinsic value of decision rights is driven strongly by an aversion to interference. This result suggests that individuals value decision rights because they dislike letting other individuals interfere on their outcomes.
