When people make decisions with a pre-selected choice option – a ‘default’ – they are more likely to select that option. Because defaults are easy to implement, they constitute one of the most widely employed tools in the choice architecture toolbox. However, to decide when defaults should be used instead of other choice architecture tools, policy-makers must know how effective defaults are and when and why their effectiveness varies. To answer these questions, we conduct a literature search and meta-analysis of the 58 default studies (pooled n = 73,675) that fit our criteria. While our analysis reveals a considerable influence of defaults (d = 0.68, 95% confidence interval = 0.53–0.83), we also discover substantial variation: the majority of default studies find positive effects, but several do not find a significant effect, and two even demonstrate negative effects. To explain this variability, we draw on existing theoretical frameworks to examine the drivers of disparity in effectiveness. Our analysis reveals two factors that partially account for the variability in defaults’ effectiveness. First, we find that defaults in consumer domains are more effective and in environmental domains are less effective. Second, we find that defaults are more effective when they operate through endorsement (defaults that are seen as conveying what the choice architect thinks the decision-maker should do) or endowment (defaults that are seen as reflecting the status quo). We end with a discussion of possible directions for a future research program on defaults, including potential additional moderators, and implications for policy-makers interested in the implementation and evaluation of defaults.

Our survey demonstrates great variation in practice in the management of pain and anxiety in Canadian PICUs. Standardized strategies for sedation, delirium and withdrawal, and sleep promotion are lacking. There is a need for research in this field and the development of evidence-based, pediatric sedation and analgesia guidelines.

Assuring the effectiveness of Web sites in communicating critical information to a college student who has experienced sexual assault is important and complex. Recognizing that the average American reads at the eighth grade level, the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association recommend that information be written at a sixth-grade reading level. A sample of 10 U.S. institutions of higher education (IHE) Web sites made up the sample of the current study. The IHEs included were all participants in a project called “Cultivating Safe College Campuses,” funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. This study aimed to gain more insight into the readability of college Web sites about sexual assault resources for the intended consumer—college students. The reading level of IHE Web sites with information about sexual assault should align with the reading level of their intended audience. The average readability of sexual assault Webpages for this study's sample of IHEs was over 13, well above the reading level of the average “first time in college” student. All IHEs should review the readability of their Web sites and revise them to use consistent and defined terms and present the material in a way that is clear and accessible for the student who has experienced trauma.

Making good health insurance decisions is important to health outcomes and longevity, but consumers’ errors are well documented. The authors examine if targeted choice architecture interventions can reduce these mistakes. The paper examines the interaction of two choice architecture tools on improve consumer insurance decisions in online healthcare exchanges: ordering the options from best to worst based on a high-quality user model and partitioning the total set of options. While ordering and partitioning do not always improve choices separately, the authors use one field study and three experiments to identify the conditions that allow the combination to greatly improve health insurance decisions. Findings indicate that when options are ordered such that the best options appear at the beginning of the presented list, partitioning nudges consumers to focus on the best options. However, if the best options are not at the top of the list, partitioning discourages search and can impair consumers’ discovery of the best options. Process data shows that these effects are achieved by focusing consumers’ limited attention on higher quality options. These results suggest that wise choice architecture interventions need to consider the joint effect of choice architecture tools as well as the quality of the firm’s user model.

American democracy is built, in part, on the ideal of a “free marketplace of ideas.” Consumers are assumed to have access to the same arguments, and through deliberation, come to a consensus about which arguments are true, and therefore, best. In this article, we explain how deceptive communication undermines this ideal. We focus on two key dimensions—the motive of deception and the perception of dishonesty—that influence people's propensity to deceive and the social rewards of doing so. Deception is seen as the most justified when it is morally motivated and when it involves indirect tactics that are not perceived as particularly dishonest. We argue, therefore, that morally motivated half‐truths, rather than blatantly selfish lies, may do the greatest damage to the marketplace of ideas. Ultimately, this article advances our understanding of the causes and consequences of deception and helps to explain the dynamics that lead to widespread misinformation in our social world.