Citation

Dinner I, Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG, Liu K. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2011; 17(4): 432.

Affiliation

IE Business School.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/a0026470

PMID

22181031

Abstract

Reports an error in "Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose" by Isaac Dinner, Eric J. Johnson, Daniel G. Goldstein and Kaiya Liu (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Advanced Online Publication, Jun 27, 2011, np). The article contained an incorrect Figure 4. Additionally, the article was missing keywords. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-13230-001.) Default options exert an influence in areas as varied as retirement program design, organ donation policy, and consumer choice. Past research has offered potential reasons why no-action defaults matter: (a) effort, (b) implied endorsement, and (c) reference dependence. The first two of these explanations have been experimentally demonstrated, but the latter has received far less attention. In three experiments we produce default effects and demonstrate that reference dependence can play a major role in their effectiveness. We find that the queries formulated by defaults can produce differences in constructed preferences and further that manipulating queries can also mitigate default effects. The experimental context involves two environmentally consequential alternatives: cheap, inefficient incandescent light bulbs, and expensive, efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. Within this context we also measure the impact of each potential rationale for a default effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).

Language: en