Partitioning Default Effects: Why People Choose Not to Choose

Dinner, Isaac M.; Johnson, Eric J.; Goldstein, Daniel G.; Liu, Kaiya

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1352488

Cited by 45 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Abadie & Gay, 2006;Choi et al, 2003;Dinner et al, 2011;Johnson & Goldstein 2003;Kahneman, 2003;Keller et al, 2011;Thaler et al, 2010) and organ donation is no exception to this rule. The basic reason why defaults generate such a large effect is that people, contrary to what neoclassical economists would assume, do not have explicit preferences with respect to every imaginable good or service.…”

Section: Setting Defaults In Organ Donationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the effects of defaults in organ donation systems

Dalen

Henkens

2014

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of patients in many parts of the world to benefit from transplantation is limited by growing shortages of transplantable organs. The choice architecture of donation systems is said to play a pivotal role in explaining this gap. In this paper we examine the question how different defaults affect the decision to register as organ donor. Three defaults in organ donation systems are compared: mandated choice, presumed consent and explicit consent.Hypothetical choices from a national survey of 2,069 respondents in the Netherlands -a country with an explicit consent system -suggests that mandated choice and presumed consent are more effective at generating registered donors than explicit consent.

show abstract

Section: Setting Defaults In Organ Donationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the effects of defaults in organ donation systems

Dalen

Henkens

2014

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This friction against changing pre-set options is referred to as the "default effect" by psychologists, and has been identified in a wide variety of contexts (Dinner et al, 2011). Default search results are therefore what the vast majority of users searching for "Ankara" will see.…”

Section: The Geography Of Google Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Hegemonies: The Localness of Search Engine Results

Ballatore

Graham

Sen

2017

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every day, billions of Internet users rely on search engines to find information about places to make decisions about tourism, shopping, and countless other economic activities. In an opaque process, search engines assemble digital content produced in a variety of locations around the world and make it available to large cohorts of consumers. Although these representations of place are increasingly important and consequential, little is known about their characteristics and possible biases. Analysing a corpus of Google search results generated for 188 capital cities, this article investigates the geographic dimension of search results, focusing on searches such as "Lagos" and "Rome" on different localized versions of the engine. This study answers the questions: To what degree is this city-related information locally produced and diverse? Which countries are producing their own representations and which are represented by others? Through a new indicator of localness of search results, we identify the factors that contribute to shape this uneven digital geography, combining several development indicators. The development of the publishing industry and scientific production appears as a fairly strong predictor of localness of results. This empirical knowledge will support efforts to curb the digital divide, promoting a more inclusive, democratic information society.

show abstract

“…The power of default changes has also been demonstrated with respect to the choice between incandescent light bulbs and (more energy-efficient) fluorescent bulbs (Dinner et al 2011). In that purely experimental study, though, defaults turned out to be rather less sticky than in the natural field experiments reported above.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Green Nudges: Do They Work? Are They Ethical?

Schubert

2016

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Real-world consumers, though, are motivated by more than incentives and information (Michalek et al. 2015). These are innovative policy tools that are designed with a specific focus on behavioral factors 1 Most economist readers can be assumed to be familiar with the key insights of Behavioral Economics; those interested in the details may be referred to the excellent surveys by Camerer and Loewenstein (2004) and Della Vigna (2009). Van den Bergh et al. (2000) give an outline of behavioral economics insights with a focus on their relevance for environmental economics prior to Nudge. The contributions by Norton et al. (1998) and Söderbaum (1994) are particularly interesting as precursors of the nudge agenda, as they argue that environmental policies should try to exploit endogenous preference change. 2 An important exception to that rule was Jack Knetsch, see, e.g. Knetsch and Sinden (1984), Knetsch (1989 and structured. To nudge someone is to deliberately intervene in a given CA. Nudges are widely regarded as potential complements to more traditional incentive-based regulation; the hope is that adding them to the policy mix may be both more effective and more popular among the general public than relying on traditional regulatory tools alone (Thaler and Sunstein 2008: ch. 12). 6 As Cass Sunstein (2014: 13) puts it, the general aim is to develop "sensible, low-cost policies with close reference to how human beings actually think and behave." There is an important caveat, though: Due to their unclear welfare foundations and the potentially paternalistic and manipulative way in which these tools shape human behavior (viz., by addressing and exploiting cognitive biases), nudges raise complex ethical questions. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor mayThe exact definition of nudges is a matter of some controversy. What's typically offered as a back-of-the-envelope definition -"interventions that influence people's behavior without significantly changing their monetary incentives or coercing them" -is unhelpful, as it also lets the mere provision of information count as a nudge. We rather suggest to follow Hansen (2016) by supplementing this shorthand with the notion, originally advanced by Thaler and Sunstein (2008: 8) To illustrate, the subsidy and tax schemes discussed by Allcott and Taubinsky (2015) in the context of energy efficiency policy qualify as BEP in our sense of the term. 5 See in particular (ibid.: ch. 12) on green nudging, and Sunstein (201...

show abstract

Partitioning Default Effects: Why People Choose Not to Choose

Cited by 45 publications

References 21 publications

Comparing the effects of defaults in organ donation systems

Comparing the effects of defaults in organ donation systems

Digital Hegemonies: The Localness of Search Engine Results

Green Nudges: Do They Work? Are They Ethical?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About