The default pull: An experimental demonstration of subtle default effects on preferences

The impact of default options on choice is a reliable, well-established behavioral finding. However, several different effects may lend to choosing defaults in an often indistinguishable manner, including loss aversion, inattention, information leakage, and transaction costs associated with switching. We introduce the notion of the ``default pull'' as the effect that even subtle default options have on decision makers' uncertainty about their own preferences. The default pull shapes what a decision maker prefers by causing her to consider whether she prefers the default. We demonstrate default pull effects using a simple decision making task that strips away many of the usual reasons that defaults could affect choices, and we show that defaults can have substantial effects on choice, even when the default itself was not chosen.

[1]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  Testing Transitivity of Preferences on Two-Alternative Forced Choice Data , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[2]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[3]  J. Horowitz,et al.  Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments , 1994 .

[4]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[5]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[6]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .

[7]  Todd Sarver,et al.  A Unique Costly Contemplation Representation , 2010 .

[8]  Colin Camerer.  Prospect Theory In The Wild: Evidence From The Field , 1998 .

[9]  P. Slovic.  The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[10]  Yusufcan Masatlioglu,et al.  Rational choice with status quo bias , 2005, J. Econ. Theory.

[11]  John A. List,et al.  What Do Laboratory Experiments Tell Us About the Real World , 2006 .

[12]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Do Defaults Save Lives? , 2006 .

[13]  Alberto Abadie,et al.  The Impact of Presumed Consent Legislation on Cadaveric Organ Donation: A Cross Country Study , 2004, Journal of health economics.

[14]  David M. Kreps.  A REPRESENTATION THEOREM FOR "PREFERENCE FOR FLEXIBILITY" , 1979 .

[15]  Russell B. Korobkin,et al.  The Status Quo Bias and Contract Default Rules , 1998 .

[16]  J. List.  On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games , 2007, Journal of Political Economy.

[17]  D. Ariely,et al.  “Coherent Arbitrariness”: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences , 2003 .

[18]  Craig R. M. McKenzie,et al.  Information leakage from logically equivalent frames , 2006, Cognition.

[19]  Stacey R. Finkelstein,et al.  Recommendations Implicit in Policy Defaults , 2006, Psychological science.

[20]  Yuval Salant,et al.  c ○ 2008 The Review of Economic Studies Limited (A, f): Choice with Frames 1 , 2007 .

[21]  R. Thaler,et al.  Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2008 .

[22]  A. Tversky.  Intransitivity of preferences. , 1969 .

[23]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Advances in behavioral economics , 2004 .

[24]  J. Dana,et al.  Transitivity of preferences. , 2011, Psychological review.

[25]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories , 1995 .

[26]  Roberto A. Weber,et al.  Exploiting Moral Wriggle Room: Behavior Inconsistent with a Preference for Fair Outcomes , 2004 .

[27]  F. Strack,et al.  Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility , 1997 .

[28]  N. Bardsley.  Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? , 2008 .

[29]  Colin Camerer.  Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction , 2003 .

[30]  Reinhard Niederée,et al.  Generalizing the concept of binary choice systems induced by rankings: one way of probabilizing deterministic measurement structures , 1992 .

[31]  Jacob S. Sagi.  Anchored preference relations , 2006, J. Econ. Theory.

[32]  G. Chapman,et al.  Opting in vs opting out of influenza vaccination. , 2010, JAMA.

[33]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions , 1993 .