The meaning of default options for potential organ donors - PubMed (original) (raw)

The meaning of default options for potential organ donors

Shai Davidai et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012.

Abstract

Rates of participation in organ donation programs are known to be powerfully influenced by the relevant default policy in effect ("opt-in" vs. "opt-out"). Three studies provide evidence that this difference in participation may occur in part because the requirement to opt-in or opt-out results in large differences in the meaning that individuals attach to participation. American participants in Study 1 rated participation as a significantly more substantial action when agreement was purportedly obtained under opt-in rather than opt-out conditions, and nonagreement as a greater abrogation of responsibility when that decision was made under opt-out rather than under opt-in conditions. Study 2 replicated these findings with respondents who live in Germany, which employs an opt-in donation policy, and in Austria, which has an opt-out policy. Study 3 required American participants to rate various actions that differ in the effort and self-sacrifice they demand. As predicted, the placement of organ donation on the resulting multidimensional scaling dimension differed significantly depending on whether it purportedly was made in an opt-in country (where it was considered roughly akin to giving away half of one's wealth to charity upon one's death) or an opt-out country (where it fell between letting others get ahead of one in line and volunteering some time to help the poor). We discuss the relationship between this change of meaning account and two other mechanisms-behavioral inertia and implicit norms-that we believe underlie the default effect in decision making and other effects of policies designed to influence decision-makers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

(A) Judged similarity of organ donation to a set of high-cost/high-involvement actions (e.g., donating 20% of one’s income to charity) vs. low-cost/low-involvement actions (e.g., donating 2% of one’s income to charity) by United States participants regarding an unnamed opt-in or opt-out country. (B) Judged similarity of organ non-donation to relatively substantial/uncommon negative behaviors (e.g., reporting false information on one’s tax return) vs. nonsubstantial/common behaviors (e.g., failing to report some income on one’s tax return). (C) Judged similarity of organ donation to relatively high-cost/high-involvement actions and low-cost/low-involvement actions by residents of an opt-in or opt-out country.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Multidimensional scaling solution of ratings of the similarity of nine behaviors in an opt-in vs. opt-out country.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Friedman M. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press; 1953.
    1. Gilovich T, Griffin DW. Judgment and decision making. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, editors. The Handbook of Social Psychology. 5th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2010. pp. 542–588.
    1. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–291.
    1. Levin IP, Gaeth GJ. Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. J Consum Res. 1988;15:374–378.
    1. Shafir E. Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Mem Cognit. 1993;21:546–556. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources