Default effect

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The default effect ( English default for default or default) or the default conviction is a cognitive bias , an excessive preference for those option ( "default option" or "default"), in which a player is no active decision meets. The default effect is examined by psychology and interdisciplinary research areas such as behavioral economics .

A related effect is the status quo bias , which describes the excessive preference for the status quo over change.

Examples

The default effect can be demonstrated in a number of areas of life and topics, even with vital decisions. In the area of organ donation , this is a hot topic because it has a significant impact on what percentage of the population are donors. In a country where the objection regulation applies, the default option is that consent is assumed as long as the parties concerned do not explicitly object (also known as opt-out). In contrast, there is the consent regulation (opt-in), in which active consent precedes participation. When comparing these countries, there was a clear difference between the opt-in and opt-out countries. While the rates in all countries with an opt-out rule (with the exception of Sweden) are around 99 percent, the rates in the opt-in countries vary between 4 and 28 percent.

But this effect is also used in the private sector. Companies often set their printers to print on both sides by default (to save paper). Technically, you could choose a different setting, but many people stick with this preselection.

In a study from the USA on attitudes towards resuscitation attempts in the delivery room in premature infants, this effect was clearly shown. 80% of the study participants spoke out in favor of resuscitation if it was presented to them as the default. In comparison, with 39%, only half as many people did this when “let die” was set as the default. This example clearly underlines that defaults can be of enormous importance even for relatively important decisions.

It can be empirically established that people tend to default, even if this was set arbitrarily and it would only take a little effort to decide on another alternative.

causes

Default effects may be partly rational , partly irrational ; which proportion predominates depends on the specific topic (so-called "content effect"). Non-psychological causes can also lead to a tendency for the initial attitudes to be preferred, for example because those actors are also statistically recorded who are not aware of an alternative option or are otherwise unable to choose it. If several conditions (e.g. temporal or formal) have to be met in order to bring about a successful change of state, then this already leads to a preference for the status quo due to the system. A number of different explanations have been developed for the Default Effect as to why such random presets guide the selection. These include convenience (or cognitive effort ), transaction costs (switching costs) , loss aversion , recommendation, change of meaning, "spoiled for choice", status quo distortion ( English status quo bias ), omission effect and property effects ( endowment- Effect , similar to the mere exposure effect ).

meaning

Experiments have shown that the probability of choosing an option increases if it is designed as a default.

In healthcare, choosing default options can significantly improve quality.

literature

  • Stadler, Rupert and others: Defaults as navigation aids in product configurators - an example from the automotive industry. In: Marketing Review , St. Gallen 29.2, 2012, pp. 42–46.
  • Reisch, Lucia, Wencke Gwozdz: On the “power of defaults” and “gentle nudging”: Insights into behavioral economics as impulses for an effective nutrition policy. In: The future on the table. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011. 323–336.
  • Detlef Fetchenhauer : Default effects in the distribution of the business newspaper AKTIV . An assessment from a psychological point of view. In: Head: Ulrich Brodersen, Editor: Michael Opferkuch (Hrsg.): AKTIV Wirtschaftszeitung . Institute of the German Economy Cologne Medien GmbH - Working Environment Division, Cologne Berlin, 2014, ISBN 978-3-602-14943-8 , p. 20 ( iwmedien.de ).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Markus Thomas Münter: Microeconomics, competition and strategic behavior. , Vol. 4910. UTB, 2018, p. 117
  2. ^ A b E. J. Johnson, D. Goldstein: MEDICINE: Do Defaults Save Lives? In: Science . tape 302 , no. 5649 , 2003, p. 1338-1339 , doi : 10.1126 / science.1091721 , PMID 14631022 (en).
  3. ↑ Merkel wants to educate Germans through nudging. In: Die Welt , March 12, 2015.
  4. ^ MF Haward, RO Murphy, JM Lorenz: Default options and neonatal resuscitation decisions. In: Journal of medical ethics . tape 38 , no. 12 , 2012, p. 713-718 , doi : 10.1136 / medethics-2011-100182 , PMID 23180252 (en).
  5. ↑ Dinner, I., Johnson, EJ, Goldstein, DG & Liu, K. / Madrian, BC & Shea, D .: Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology . tape 17 , no. 4 , 2011, p. 332 .
  6. ^ G. Gigerenzer: Why Heuristics Work . In: Perspectives on Psychological Science . tape 3 , 2008, p. 20–281 , doi : 10.1111 / j.1745-6916.2008.00058.x .
  7. ^ Johnson, EJ: Man, my brain is tired: Linking depletion and cognitive effort in choice. In: Journal of Consumer Psychology . tape 18 , no. 1 , 2008, p. 14-16 .
  8. ↑ a b c Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R .: Status quo bias in decision making. In: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty . tape 1 , no. 1 , 1988, p. 7-59 .
  9. ^ Ayres, I. & Gertner, R .: Filling gaps in incomplete contracts: An economic theory of default rules. In: Yale Law Journal . 1989, p. 87-130 .
  10. ↑ A. Tversky, D. Kahneman: Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model . In: The Quarterly Journal of Economics . tape 106 , no. 4 , 1991, pp. 1039 , doi : 10.2307 / 2937956 , JSTOR : 2937956 .
  11. ^ CRM McKenzie, MJ Liersch, SR Finkelstein: Recommendations Implicit in Policy Defaults . In: Psychological Science . tape 17 , no. 5 , 2006, p. 414-420 , doi : 10.1111 / j.1467-9280.2006.01721.x , PMID 16683929 .
  12. ↑ S. Davidai, T. Gilovich, LD Ross: The meaning of default options for potential organ donors . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . tape 109 , no. 38 , 2012, p. 15201 , doi : 10.1073 / pnas.1211695109 .
  13. ↑ DA Redelmeier & Shafir, E. (1995). Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA, 273 (4), 302-305
  14. ↑ Landman, J. (1987): Regret and Elation Following Action and Inaction Affective Responses to Positive Versus Negative Outcomes. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 13 (4), 524-536
  15. ↑ Spranca, M., Minsk, E. & Baron, J. (1991): Omission and commission in judgment and choice. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 27, 76-105
  16. ↑ Ritov, I. & Baron, J. (1992): Status quo and omission biases. In: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 5 (1), 49-61
  17. ↑ Baron, J. & Ritov, I. (1994): Reference points and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and human Decision Processes , 59 (3), 475-498.
  18. ↑ Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. & Thaler, R .: Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. In: Journal of Political Economy . tape 98 , 1990, pp. 1325-1348 .
  19. ^ Thaler, R .: Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. In: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization . tape 1 , no. 1 , 1980, p. 39-60 .
  20. ↑ Johnson, EJ, Häubl, G. & Keinan, A .: Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition . tape 33 , 2007, p. 461-474 .
  21. ^ Halpern, Scott D., Peter A. Ubel, David A. Asch: Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. In: The New England journal of medicine 357.13, 2007, p. 1340.