[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sfu/sfudps/dp21-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Default-Setting and Default Bias: Does the Choice Architect Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Freeman

    (Simon Fraser University)

  • Hanh T. Tong

    (Simon Fraser University)

  • Lanny Zrill

    (HEC Montreal)

Abstract
This paper studies how choices are influenced by the procedure used to select the default option. We develop an approach to test and compare default bias across different default-setting rules while controlling for heterogeneous preferences. We apply it to a within-subjects experimental design lottery choice experiment to compare four different default-setting rules: Random defaults, Custom defaults selected based on an individual's own past choices, Social defaults selected based on others’ choices, and Expert-set defaults. We find that the content of default-setting rules matters: default bias is present for all non-random default-setting rules we study, but not for randomly-set defaults.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Freeman & Hanh T. Tong & Lanny Zrill, 2021. "Default-Setting and Default Bias: Does the Choice Architect Matter?," Discussion Papers dp21-08, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    • Handle: RePEc:sfu:sfudps:dp21-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sfu.ca/repec-econ/sfu/sfudps/dp21-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. Filip Matêjka & Alisdair McKay, 2015. "Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 272-298, January.
    3. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    4. Joshua Blumenstock & Michael Callen & Tarek Ghani, 2018. "Why Do Defaults Affect Behavior? Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(10), pages 2868-2901, October.
    5. Gabriel D. Carroll & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2009. "Optimal Defaults and Active Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1639-1674.
    6. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    7. John D. Hey, 2018. "Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 17, pages 381-388, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Brigitte C. Madrian & Dennis F. Shea, 2001. "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1149-1187.
    9. Thomas de Haan & Jona Linde, 2018. "‘Good Nudge Lullaby’: Choice Architecture and Default Bias Reinforcement," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(610), pages 1180-1206, May.
    10. Andrew Caplin & Daniel Martin, 2017. "Defaults and Attention: The Drop Out Effect," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 68(5), pages 747-755.
    11. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    12. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    13. Jachimowicz, Jon M. & Duncan, Shannon & Weber, Elke U. & Johnson, Eric J., 2019. "When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 159-186, November.
    14. Keith M. Marzilli Ericson, 2014. "Consumer Inertia and Firm Pricing in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Insurance Exchange," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 38-64, February.
    15. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    16. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Adrian Bruhin & Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2010. "Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1375-1412, July.
    19. B. Douglas Bernheim & Andrey Fradkin & Igor Popov, 2015. "The Welfare Economics of Default Options in 401(k) Plans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(9), pages 2798-2837, September.
    20. Benjamin R. Handel, 2013. "Adverse Selection and Inertia in Health Insurance Markets: When Nudging Hurts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2643-2682, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Asen Ivanov, 2021. "Optimal pension plan default policies when employees are biased," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(3), pages 583-596, June.
    2. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    3. Cox, James C. & Kreisman, Daniel & Dynarski, Susan, 2020. "Designed to fail: Effects of the default option and information complexity on student loan repayment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    4. Ericson, Keith M. Marzilli, 2020. "When consumers do not make an active decision: Dynamic default rules and their equilibrium effects," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 369-385.
    5. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Altmann, Steffen & Falk, Armin & Grunewald, Andreas, 2013. "Incentives and Information as Driving Forces of Default Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 7610, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Wang, Wenjie & Ida, Takanori & Shimada, Hideki, 2020. "Default effect versus active decision: Evidence from a field experiment in Los Alamos," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Beshears, John & Kosowsky, Harry, 2020. "Nudging: Progress to date and future directions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(S), pages 3-19.
    9. Timothy F. Harris & Aaron Yelowitz, 2017. "Nudging Life Insurance Holdings In The Workplace," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 951-981, April.
    10. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
    11. Kirchgässner, Gebhard, 2012. "Sanfter Paternalismus, meritorische Güter, und der normative Individualismus," Economics Working Paper Series 1217, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    12. Ghesla, Claus & Grieder, Manuel & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Egebark, Johan & Ekström, Mathias, 2016. "Can indifference make the world greener?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-13.
    14. Christian König-Kersting & Johannes Lohse & Anna Louisa Merkel, 2020. "Active and Passive Risk-Taking," Working Papers 2020-04, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    15. Zarek Brot-Goldberg & Timothy Layton & Boris Vabson & Adelina Yanyue Wang, 2023. "The Behavioral Foundations of Default Effects: Theory and Evidence from Medicare Part D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(10), pages 2718-2758, October.
    16. Fadlon, Itzik & Laibson, David, 2022. "Paternalism and pseudo-rationality: An illustration based on retirement savings," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    17. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2017. "Soft paternalism, merit goods, and normative individualism," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 125-152, February.
    18. Jia Liu & Yohanes E. Riyanto, 2017. "The limit to behavioral inertia and the power of default in voluntary contribution games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 815-835, April.
    19. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    20. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sfu:sfudps:dp21-08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Working Paper Coordinator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desfuca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.