The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 27 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects
Open accessAbstract
When people make decisions with a pre-selected choice option – a ‘default’ – they are more likely to select that option. Because defaults are easy to implement, they constitute one of the most widely employed tools in the choice architecture toolbox. However, to decide when defaults should be used instead of other choice architecture tools, policy-makers must know how effective defaults are and when and why their effectiveness varies. To answer these questions, we conduct a literature search and meta-analysis of the 58 default studies (pooled n = 73,675) that fit our criteria. While our analysis reveals a considerable influence of defaults ( d = 0.68, 95% confidence interval = 0.53–0.83), we also discover substantial variation: the majority of default studies find positive effects, but several do not find a significant effect, and two even demonstrate negative effects. To explain this variability, we draw on existing theoretical frameworks to examine the drivers of disparity in effectiveness. Our analysis reveals two factors that partially account for the variability in defaults’ effectiveness. First, we find that defaults in consumer domains are more effective and in environmental domains are less effective. Second, we find that defaults are more effective when they operate through endorsement (defaults that are seen as conveying what the choice architect thinks the decision-maker should do) or endowment (defaults that are seen as reflecting the status quo). We end with a discussion of possible directions for a future research program on defaults, including potential additional moderators, and implications for policy-makers interested in the implementation and evaluation of defaults.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis finds that opt-out defaults substantially increase uptake of the pre-selected option, with a medium-sized average effect across 58 observations. It also shows substantial variability, partly explained by domain and by whether defaults activate endorsement or endowment channels.
Key findings
- Across 58 default studies (pooled n = 73,675), opt-out defaults increased choice of the pre-selected option versus opt-in defaults: d = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53–0.83, p < 0.001; the three-level model gave d+ = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.47–0.80, p < 0.001.
- For binary outcomes (38 of 58 observations), opt-out defaults increased uptake by an absolute average of 27.24% (Cramér’s V+ = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21–0.37, p < 0.001).
- Consumer domains showed larger default effects (b = 0.73, SE = 0.23, p = 0.003), while environmental domains were marginally weaker (b = −0.47, SE = 0.27, p = 0.08); in the channels model, consumer remained positive (b = 0.89, p = 0.0003) and environmental became negative (b = −0.60, p = 0.028).
- Endorsement (b = 0.32, SE = 0.15, p = 0.038) and endowment (b = 0.31, SE = 0.15, p = 0.044) significantly moderated default effects, but ease did not (b = −0.05, SE = 0.15, p = 0.75). Heterogeneity was very high (I² = 98.21%; three-level I² = 98.01%).
Methods
- Literature search and meta-analysis of studies explicitly comparing opt-in and opt-out default conditions; included binary and continuous choice measures, with multiple relevant measures or groups included as separate observations when appropriate.
- Final dataset: 58 observations from 55 studies in 35 articles, pooled n = 73,675.
- Random-effects models using restricted maximum likelihood in R with metafor, inverse-variance weights, and a three-level model (observation, study, article); study characteristics and three default channels (endorsement, ease, endowment) were coded as moderators, with robust variance estimation as a check.
Limitations
- The paper states that channel coding is a noisy approximation, that underlying mechanisms were not measured in the vast majority of prior default studies, and that ease was not systematically manipulated in the included studies.
- The paper notes high heterogeneity and cautions that Egger’s regression is prone to Type I errors when heterogeneity is high; publication-bias results should be interpreted cautiously.
- The text makes evident that domain explanations are speculative, that the analysis relies on researchers’ design choices rather than systematic variation, and that the meta-analysis cannot directly compare defaults with alternative choice architecture tools outside one focal study.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 27 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No other study characteristic explained any further systematic variance in the variability of default effects present in prior studies.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: study characteristics
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reviewing the funnel plots highlights that several observations appear outside of the funnel on both sides, suggesting potential publication bias (Duval & Tweedie, 2000).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Publication bias
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including study characteristics as moderators reduces the heterogeneity by 4.67% to I 2 = 93.54%.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: study characteristics
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the regression coefficient for environmental domains is marginally significant and negative (b = -0.47,SE = 0.27, p = 0.08).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: study characteristics
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While our analysis reveals a considerable influence of defaults (d = 0.68, 95% confidence interval = 0.53-0.83)”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When people make decisions with a pre-selected choice optiona 'default'they are more likely to select that option.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“only the regression coefficient for consumer domains (b = 0.73, SE = 0.23, p = 0.003; see Table 1) is statistically significant and positive”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: study characteristics
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, we find that defaults are more effective when they operate through endorsement (defaults that are seen as conveying what the choice architect thinks the decision-maker should do) or endowment (defaults that are seen as reflecting the status quo).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We again find that opt-out defaults lead to significantly greater uptake of the pre-selected decision than opt-in defaults (V + = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21-0.37],p < 0.001) by an absolute average of 27.24%.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Binary studies
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contrary to our prediction, ease is not a significant moderator (b = -0.05,SE = 0.15, p = 0.75).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: default channels
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, because Egger et al.'s (1997) test for asymmetry of the funnel plot is not significant (t(56) = -0.39,p = 0.69), the likely absence of studies does not lead to inadequate estimation of the default effect.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Publication bias
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we also discover substantial variation: the majority of default studies find positive effects, but several do not find a significant effect, and two even demonstrate negative effects.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including these studies increases the overall effect to d + = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65-0.96,p < 0.001; this estimate remains directionally the same as our prior analysis and is significantly different from zero.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Publication bias
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our base model, we find an I 2 of 98.21%.We employ methods that apply the use of I 2 to multilevel meta-analytic models (Nakagawa & Santos, 2012) and find an I 2 of 98.01% for our three-level model (observation level, study level, and article level), which is considered to be very high heterogeneity (Higgins et al., 2003).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Why do default effects vary?
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“46 observations find a statistically significant and positive effect (i.e., the observations are to the right of 0 and the confidence interval excludes 0), ten observations do not find a statistically significant effect (i.e., the confidence interval includes 0) and two observations find a statistically significant and negative effect (i.e., the observations are to the left of 0 and the confidence”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Why do default effects vary?
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we find that defaults in consumer domains are more effective and in environmental domains are less effective.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Parceling out these distinct sources, we find that 30.21% of the heterogeneity is at the article level, 63.58% is at the studies within-articles level, 4.21% is at the observations within-studies level, and the remaining 2.00% is due to sampling variance.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Why do default effects vary?
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis reveals that opt-out defaults lead to greater uptake of the preselected decision than opt-in defaults (d = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53-0.83],p < 0.001), producing a medium-sized effect given conventional criteria (Cohen, 1988).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: effect size
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, ease does not seem to be systematically manipulated in studies, but is often varied in realworld applications.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the base model (without moderators), we find an I 2 of 92.85%; when adding study characteristics, we find an I 2 of 90.47%; and when additionally entering the default channel coding, we find an I 2 of 89.12%.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Ease
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, choice architects currently do not know how effective they can expect an implementation of a default to be, nor which factors in the design decisions may systematically alter how influential the application of a default may be.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Introduction
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Organ donation defaults can be very simple, even consisting of the one-word difference between”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johnson & Goldstein, 2003
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis suggests that defaults are more effective in consumer domains and that the default effect may be weaker in environmental domains.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: study characteristics
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“because choice architects commonly do not have access to this information and are often inaccurate in their estimations of the default effect (Zlatev et al., 2017)”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zlatev et al., 2017
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the results of the analyses did not meaningfully change when using this estimation.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: study characteristics
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that in this analysis the endowment channel (b = 0.31, SE = 0.16, p = 0.081) and the environmental domain (b = -0.60,SE = 0.28, p = 0.056) drop to marginal significance; all other results hold in this specification.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: default channels
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, both the context in which a default is used and whether the default's design triggers its underlying channels partially explain the variability in the default effect.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The coders can accurately identify which channel is activated in each study.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, our analysis also reveals that there is substantial variation in the effectiveness of defaults, which indicates that a choice architect who deploys a default may have difficulty estimating the effect size he or she can expect from an implementation of defaults; this effect size may be substantially lower or higher than the meta-analytic average.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“(3) they will evaluate other options in reference to the pre-selected option with which they are already endowed (Dinner et al., 2011).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dinner et al., 2011
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“(2) they can exert less effort when staying with the pre-selected option”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dinner et al., 2011
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we trained two codersa graduate student and a senior research assistant, who are not part of the author team to rate each default study on the extent to which its design likely triggered each of the three channels (endorsement, ease and endowment; see Cadario &Chandon, 2018, andJachimowicz, Wihler et al., 2018, for similar approaches).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Coding the activation of the three default channels
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The coders' ratings of the extent to which each default study's design likely triggered endorsement, ease, and endowment validly index the psychological channels actually activated in decision-makers.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For policy-makers, our findings contain an important lesson: design choices that may have come about inadvertently and may seem inconsequential can have substantial consequences for the size of the default effect.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The coders can accurately identify which channel is activated in each study.
In the paper
“(1) they believe that the intentions of the choice architect, as suggested through the choice design, are beneficial to them”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dinner et al., 2011
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“Three channels for defaults' effectiveness have been identified in the prior literature, and the effect of any given default in a study may happen through three, two, one or none of these channels.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dinner et al., 2011
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interrater reliability, calculated via Cohen's κ, was acceptable for endorsement (κ = 0.59), ease (κ = 0.58) and endowment (κ = 0.80; Landis & Koch, 1977).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Coding the activation of the three default channels
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, defaults vary in their effectiveness, and setting a default may not always be the most suitable intervention.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Limitations and future directions
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“we draw on the framework developed by Dinner et al. (2011), who propose that defaults influence decisions through three psychological channelsendorsement, ease, and endowmentthat can play a role both individually and in parallel”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dinner et al., 2011
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we test for multicollinearity by examining the correlation matrix of the independent variables and do not find evidence for multicollinearity, as all correlations were small to moderate, and most were nonsignificant.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: default channels
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“we note that the effect for defaults we find in the current meta-analysis is considerably larger than a recent meta-analysis evaluation of healthy eating nudges (including plate size changes or nutrition labels, d = 0.23; Cadario & Chandon, 2018), a recent meta-analysis of the effect of Opower's descriptive social norm intervention on energy savings (d = 0.32; Jachimowicz, Hauser et al., 2018), as”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cadario & Chandon, 2018
- Not checked yetcites Jachimowicz, Hauser et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Kühberger, 1998
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The coders' ratings of the extent to which each default study's design likely triggered endorsement, ease, and endowment validly index the psychological channels actually activated in decision-makers.
“In the absence of such information, we trained two codersa graduate student and a senior research assistant, who are not part of the author team to rate each default study on the extent to which its design likely triggered each of the three channels”
“Ideally, we would have access to study respondents' ratings of the choice architect to evaluate endorsement (as collected by Tannenbaum et al., 2017, andBang et al., 2018), measures of reaction time to evaluate ease (as collected by Dinner et al., 2011) and measures of thoughts to evaluate endowment (as collected by Dinner et al., 2011).However, these data are not available in the vast majority of”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A default has a stronger effect if more of the three channels are involved.
“Presumably, a default has a stronger effect if more channels are involved.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The coders can accurately identify which channel is activated in each study.
“In addition, this analysis relies on our coders' ability to identify which channel is activated, which may be called into question.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“When occupying the role of an editor, the presentation of a default body of text for editing restricts autonomy because people are unconsciously influenced by default effects15,46.”
From Establishing the importance of co-creation and self-efficacy in creative collaboration with artificial intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [46]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(56) = -0.39reported p = .69 · recomputed p = .698
“t(56) = -0.39,p = .69”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Abstract counts observations as studies
MinorThe abstract reports 58 default studies, but the methods identify 58 observations from 55 studies. The 58 figure is therefore an observation count, not a study count.
“the 58 default studies (pooled n = 73,675)”
“58 observations from 55 studies in 35 articles”
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-0977 · Cited by 11,624
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior
Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355301753265543 · Cited by 3,119
(1981) · Cited by 3,038
Save More Tomorrow™: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving
Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/380085 · Cited by 2,486
Gluud, L. L., Villumsen, J., & Gluud, C. N. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010 · Cited by 2,266
Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer
Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1255484 · Cited by 1,542
Investigating Variation in Replicability: A “Many Labs” Replication Project
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Brooks, B., Brumbaugh, C. C., et al. (2014) · Social Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000178 · Cited by 1,208
The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis
Kühberger, A. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2781 · Cited by 1,180
Writing meta-analytic reviews.
Rosenthal, R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183 · Cited by 1,108
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803475.003 · Cited by 1,108
Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651235 · Cited by 1,070
Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032
Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture
Johnson, E. J., Shu, S. B., Dellaert, B. G. C., Fox, C. R., Goldstein, D. G., Haeubl, G., Larrick, R. P., Payne, J. W., Peters, E. M., Schkade, D. A., et al. (2012) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9186-1 · Cited by 989
Self-citationShould Governments Invest More in Nudging?
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J. L., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M. U., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J., & Galing, S. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617702501 · Cited by 946
Crano, W. D., & Prišlin, R. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190034 · Cited by 846
Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions
Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J. C., Meszaros, J. R., & Kunreuther, H. C. (1993) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf01065313 · Cited by 762
Self-citationSzucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797 · Cited by 761
p -Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614553988 · Cited by 717
Effect-Size Indices for Dichotomized Outcomes in Meta-Analysis.
Sánchez‐Meca, J., Marín‐Martínez, F., & Moscoso, S. C. (2003) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.8.4.448 · Cited by 655
Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour
Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2007) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004 · Cited by 613
A General Methodology for the Analysis of Experiments with Repeated Measurement of Categorical Data
Koch, G. G., Landis, J. R., Freeman, J. L., Freeman, D. H., & Lehnen, R. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529309 · Cited by 611
Carter, E. C., Kofler, L. M., Forster, D. E., & McCullough, M. E. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000083 · Cited by 594
Recommendations Implicit in Policy Defaults
McKenzie, C. R. M., Liersch, M. J., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01721.x · Cited by 529
Save more tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee savingPreprint
Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2004) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 446
The Relationship Between Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes in Systematic Reviews in Education
Slavin, R. E., & Smith, D. (2009) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373709352369 · Cited by 390
Defaults, Framing and Privacy: Why Opting In-Opting Out1
Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S., & Lohse, G. L. (2002) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1023/a:1015044207315 · Cited by 388
Self-citationLarrick, R. P., & Soll, J. B. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1154983 · Cited by 363
The Skeptical Shopper: A Metacognitive Account for the Effects of Default Options on Choice
Brown, C. L., & Krishna, A. (2004) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/425087 · Cited by 362
DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSIONS: PLAN RULES, PARTICIPANT CHOICES, AND THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE
Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C., & Metrick, A. (2002) · Tax Policy and the Economy · doi:10.1086/654750 · Cited by 355
Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose.
Dinner, I. M., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., & Liu, K. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/a0024354 · Cited by 339
Self-citationAttitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1995) · Cited by 320
Opting In vs Opting Out of Influenza Vaccination
Chapman, G. B., Li, M., Colby, H., & Yoon, H. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.892 · Cited by 270
Issues in Comparisons Between Meta-analyses and Large Trials
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.14.1089 · Cited by 246
Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs
Ebeling, F., & Lotz, S. (2015) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2681 · Cited by 244
Enhanced active choice: A new method to motivate behavior change
Keller, P. A., Harlam, B. A., Loewenstein, G. F., & Volpp, K. G. M. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.003 · Cited by 231
Why grit requires perseverance and passion to positively predict performance
Jachimowicz, J. M., Wihler, A., Bailey, E. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1803561115 · Cited by 220
Self-citationWeighting by Inverse Variance or by Sample Size in Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Marín‐Martínez, F., & Sánchez‐Meca, J. (2009) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164409344534 · Cited by 214
Behavioral Economics Holds Potential To Deliver Better Results For Patients, Insurers, And Employers
Loewenstein, G. F., Asch, D. A., & Volpp, K. G. M. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1163 · Cited by 203
Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions
Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J. C., Meszaros, J. R., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803475.014 · Cited by 180
Self-citationThe critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation
Jachimowicz, J., Hauser, O., O’Brien, J. D., Sherman, E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0434-0 · Cited by 169
Self-citationDecisional enhancement and autonomy: public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges
Felsen, G., Castelo, N., & Reiner, P. B. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005933 · Cited by 168
On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions
Tannenbaum, D., Fox, C. R., & Rogers, T. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0130 · Cited by 157
The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sustainable Consumer Behavior: The Role of Guilt
Theotokis, A., & Manganari, E. E. (2014) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2287-4 · Cited by 147
A Meta-Analysis of Effect Sizes in Consumer Behavior Experiments
Peterson, R. A., Albaum, G., & Beltramini, R. F. (1985) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209039 · Cited by 143
Steffel, M., Williams, E. F., & Pogacar, R. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0421 · Cited by 143
Givens, G. H., Smith, D. D., & Tweedie, R. L. (1997) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1030037958 · Cited by 127
Are experienced people affected by a pre-set default option—Results from a field experiment
Löfgren, Å., Martinsson, P., Hennlock, M., & Sterner, T. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2011.06.002 · Cited by 111
Metric and Scale Design as Choice Architecture Tools
Camilleri, A. R., & Larrick, R. P. (2013) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1509/jppm.12.151 · Cited by 107
Everett, J. A. C., Caviola, L., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., & Faber, N. S. (2014) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2080 · Cited by 105
Can Defaults Save the Climate? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Carbon Offsetting Programs
Araña, J. E., & León, C. J. (2012) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-012-9615-x · Cited by 104
Increasing organ donation by presumed consent and allocation priority: Chile
Fajuri, A. Z. (2015) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.14.139535 · Cited by 101
Can Consumers Make Affordable Care Affordable? The Value of Choice Architecture
Johnson, E. J., Hassin, R. R., Baker, T., Bajger, A. T., & Treuer, G. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081521 · Cited by 96
Self-citationIncreasing organ donation via changes in the default choice or allocation rule
Li, D., Hawley, Z. B., & Schnier, K. E. (2013) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.09.007 · Cited by 94
WHEN A NUDGE ISN'T ENOUGH: DEFAULTS AND SAVING AMONG LOW-INCOME TAX FILERS
Bronchetti, E. T., Dee, T., Huffman, D., & Magenheim, E. B. (2013) · National tax journal · doi:10.17310/ntj.2013.3.04 · Cited by 93
Loss Aversion and Status Quo Label Bias
Moshinsky, A., & Bar‐Hillel, M. (2010) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2010.28.2.191 · Cited by 82
Comparing the effects of defaults in organ donation systems
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2014) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.052 · Cited by 79
On the significance of effects and the effects of significance.
Cooper, H. M. (1981) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.1013 · Cited by 78
Partitioning Default Effects: Why People Choose Not to ChoosePreprint
Dinner, I. M., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., et al. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1352488 · Cited by 76
Self-citationTesting the role of glucose in self-control: A meta-analysis
Dang, J. (2016) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.021 · Cited by 70
Default neglect in attempts at social influence
Zlatev, J. J., Daniels, D. P., Kim, H., & Neale, M. A. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1712757114 · Cited by 65
Trust and self-control: The moderating role of the default
Evans, A. M., Dillon, K. D., Goldin, G., & Krueger, J. I. (2011) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002709 · Cited by 63
Trevena, L. J., Irwig, L., & Barratt, A. L. (2006) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2004.011320 · Cited by 62
Young, S. D., Monin, B., & Owens, D. K. (2009) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0016395 · Cited by 58
Wood, A. C., Buitelaar, J. K., Rijsdijk, F. V., Asherson, P. J., & Kuntsi, J. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0019048 · Cited by 54
Jin, L. (2011) · International Journal of Market Research · doi:10.2501/ijmr-53-1-075-094 · Cited by 52
Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1629950 · Cited by 49
Nudging charitable giving: Three field experiments
Zarghamee, H., Messer, K. D., Fooks, J. R., Schulze, W. D., Wu, S., & Yan, J. (2016) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.008 · Cited by 48
The application of defaults to optimize parents' health-based choices for children
Loeb, K. L., Radnitz, C. L., Keller, K., Schwartz, M. B., Marcus, S. M., Pierson, R. N., Shannon, M. C., & DeLaurentis, D. (2017) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.039 · Cited by 47
Default policies and parents’ consent for school-located HPV vaccination
Reiter, P. L., McRee, A., Pepper, J. K., & Brewer, N. T. (2012) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-012-9397-1 · Cited by 45
Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity
Abhyankar, P., Summers, B. A., Velikova, G., & Bekker, H. (2014) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x14529624 · Cited by 45
Does Active Choosing Promote Green Energy Use? Experimental EvidencePreprint
Hedlin, S., & Sunstein, C. R. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2624359 · Cited by 44
Meta-analyzing dependent correlations: An SPSS macro and an R script
Cheung, S. F., & Chan, D. K. ‐. (2013) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0386-2 · Cited by 42
Kressel, L. M., Chapman, G. B., & Leventhal, E. A. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0204-6 · Cited by 42
Default options and neonatal resuscitation decisions
Haward, M. F., Murphy, R. O., & Lorenz, J. M. (2012) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100182 · Cited by 40
What Do Corporate Default Rules and Menus Do? An Empirical Examination
Listokin, Y. J. (2009) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01144.x · Cited by 38
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091721 · Cited by 35
Self-citationThe Default Effect in End-of-Life Medical Treatment Preferences
Kressel, L. M., & Chapman, G. B. (2007) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x07300608 · Cited by 35
Probst, C. A., Shaffer, V. A., & Chan, Y.-Y. R. (2013) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0032925 · Cited by 35
To Opt-In or Opt-Out? It Depends on the QuestionPreprint
Bellman, S., Johnson, E. J., & Lohse, G. L. (2001) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 26
Self-citationExamining Theoretical Models through Research Synthesis
Becker, B. J. (2001) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/01632780122034876 · Cited by 25
Increasing colonoscopies? A psychological perspective on opting in versus opting out.
Narula, T., Ramprasad, C., Ruggs, E. N., & Hebl, M. R. (2013) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034260 · Cited by 24
P-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant ResultsPreprint
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2377290 · Cited by 22
Shevchenko, Y., von Helversen, B., & Scheibehenne, B. (2014) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005817 · Cited by 22
The Costs of Poor Health (Plan Choices) & Prescriptions for Reform
Bhargava, S., Loewenstein, G. F., & Benartzi, S. (2017) · Behavioral Science & Policy · doi:10.1353/bsp.2017.0001 · Cited by 22
Elkington, J., Stevenson, M., Haworth, N. L., & Sharwood, L. N. (2014) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12237 · Cited by 7
Ungemach, C., Camilleri, A. R., Johnson, E. J., Larrick, R. P., & Weber, E. U. (2018) · Figshare · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Chandon, 2018, Marketing Science
- Shu, 2018, Behavioural Public Policy, 1
- Shafir, 2018, Behavioural Public Policy, 1
- 1946, Scandinavian Acturial Journal, 85
- 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
- Bockenholt, 2012, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 333
- Baruch, 2014, The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 51, 199
- McCullough, 2014, Frontiers in Psychology
- Rabin, 1999, Behavioral dimensions of retirement economics, 125
- 2010, Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1
- Sunstein, 2016, Ecology LQ, 43
- 2011, Thinking, fast and slow
- Hom, 2000, Journal of Management, 26, 463
- Sunstein, 2008, Penguin Group
- Ioannidis, 2015, PLOS Biology, 15
- 2015, SSRN
- Sutton, 2011, BMJ, 343
- Chaiken, 1995, Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences
- Johnson, 2011, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 332
- Heller, 2002, Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis, 87, 530
- 2017, Harvard Business Review
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Rothman, A. J., Leask, J., & Kempe, A. (2017) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618760521 · Cited by 1,233
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2107346118 · Cited by 864
RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units
DellaVigna, S., & Linos, E. (2022) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta18709 · Cited by 510
Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices
Gächter, S., Johnson, E. J., & Herrmann, A. P. (2021) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/s11238-021-09839-8 · Cited by 533
Self-citationCitizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100620946707 · Cited by 479
Metadata
- Authors
- JACHIMOWICZ, J. M., DUNCAN, S., WEBER, E. U., & JOHNSON, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- JACHIMOWICZ, JON M.
- Venue
- Behavioural Public Policy
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2019-01-24
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 159-186
- ISSN
- 2398-063X (ISSN-L)
- 2398-0648
- OpenAlex
- W2742773638
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 92
- Citations by year
- 2026: 62 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 24
- FWCI
- 6.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Behavioural Public Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- default effects, choice architecture, status quo bias, consumer choice, environmental choice, nudging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
