Default options with a disclosed lofty purpose have been found to be effective for nudging pro-environmental behaviors. However, when the unconscious processing of the default option and the overt processing of disclosure are in conflict, they may produce certain dissonance. To discover such possibility, we manipulated the reality of the default options and the disclosed purposes (environmental protection) to be either matched (set a pro-environmental option as default) or mismatched (set an anti-environmental option as default). Using a questionnaire formatted as a milk tea order leaflet, we collected the responses from 208 high school students towards their selection of straw (proenvironmental default) and package (anti-environmental default). We also ask for their reasons of choice in order to unearth the psychological trade-offs when making the decision. We discovered a baseline default effect which is further amplified by the lofty disclosure, regardless of the type of default-disclosure pairing. The reasons given by participants buttress an unconscious pathway of decision making induced by the presence of undisclosed default option, as people choosing the pro-environmental default do not ascribe their behavior as pro-environmental (disclaimed hero effect). By contrary, people tend to resolve their cognitive dissonance after disclosure by a hypocritical pro-environmental claim. Finally, the implication of this work on market supervision of government was discussed.