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
28 Own result · 23 Not checked yet · 11 No basis given · 10 Own interpretation · 8 Own method
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plaindirectn = 73,675- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedgeddirectn = 73,675- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plaindirectn = 73,675- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“both endorsement (b = 0.32, SE = 0.15, p = 0.038) and endowment (b = 0.31, SE = 0.15, p = 0.044) are significant moderators of the default effect (see Table 2).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: default channels
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“the environmental domain is now statistically significant and negative (b = -0.60,SE = 0.26, p = 0.028).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: default channels
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 contrast to many other meta-analytic studies, our set of studies contain very large field studies, containing tens of thousands of observations.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Ease
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“If anything, our publication bias analyses highlight that larger effect sizes are underreported, suggesting that researchers may not bother to report replications of what are believed to be strong effects.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 find that consumer domains show larger default effects and environmental domains have smaller default effects.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The addition of the coding for default channels further reduces heterogeneity to Ifoot_6 = 92.32%.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: default channels
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“consumer domains remain statistically significant and positive (b = 0.89, SE = 0.23, p = 0.0003)”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: default channels
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“We find that consumer domains show larger default effects and environmental domains have smaller default effects.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“both endorsement (b = 0.32, SE = 0.15, p = 0.038) and endowment (b = 0.31, SE = 0.15, p = 0.044) are significant moderators of the default effect (see Table 2).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: default channels
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 meta-analysis shows that defaults exert a considerable influence on individuals' decisions: on average, pre-selecting an option increases the likelihood that the default option is chosen by 0.63-0.68standard deviations, or a change of 27.24% in studies that report binary outcomes.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Second, we show that if the design of the default activates two of the three previously hypothesized channels of defaults' effectiveness (Dinner et al., 2011), there is a significant increase in the size of the default effect.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dinner et al., 2011
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The coders can accurately identify which channel is activated in each study.
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
“However, we urge caution in interpreting these results, including the absence of an effect for ease.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The coders can accurately identify which channel is activated in each study.
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
“This is robust to running the model that accounts for the three levels: the observation level, the study level and the article level (d + = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.47-0.80],p < 0.001).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Results: effect size
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the ensuing difference in organ donation signup is dramatic, with percentages in the high nineties for opt-out countries and in the tens for opt-in countries (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johnson & Goldstein, 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, in some cases, the implementation of an opt-out default may even reduce the take-up of the pre-selected option (Krijnen et al., 2017).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Krijnen et al., 2017
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“While this result is encouraging, Egger's regression is prone to Type I errors in cases where heterogeneity is high (Sterne et al., 2011), as is the case in the current meta-analysis.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Publication bias
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sterne et al., 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This indicates that, if anything, default studies finding larger effects are missing from the literature.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Publication bias
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, one study showed that employees are 50% more likely to participate in a retirement savings program when enrollment is the default (i.e., they are automatically enrolled, with the option to reverse that decision) than when not enrolling is the default (Madrian & Shea, 2001).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Madrian & Shea, 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Hence, our meta-analysis indicates that defaults, in aggregate, have a considerable influence on decision-making outcomes.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Binary studies
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Endowment is thus a third mechanism that drives a default's effectiveness: the more decision-makers feel that the default reflects the status quo, the more effective the default is likely to be.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, one study finds that defaults are less effective when individuals do not trust the choice architect because the individuals believe that the choice design was based on intentions differing from their own (Tannenbaum et al., 2017).”
§ 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 Tannenbaum et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“As a result, a default's effectiveness is in part determined by whom decision-makers perceive to be the architect of the choice and by what their attitudes toward this perceived choice architect are.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition, the effectiveness of defaults is particularly important given that prior research finds that public acceptance of choice-architecture interventions rests in part on their perceived effectiveness (Bang et al., 2018;Davidai & Shafir, 2018).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Limitations and future directions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bang et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Davidai & Shafir, 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This complicates the implementation of defaults by policy-makers, who, in order to decide which choice architecture tool to use, would like to know how large a default effect they can expect (Johnson et al., 2012;Benartzi et al., 2017).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johnson et al., 2012
- Not checked yetcites Benartzi et al., 2017
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When an option is pre-selected, individuals may not evaluate every presented option separately, but rather may simply assess whether the default option satisfies them (Johnson et al., 2012).”
§ 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 Johnson et al., 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“These additional analyses thus highlight that the extent of the heterogeneity is at least partially driven by the large sample sizes included in the meta-analysis.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Ease
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Decision-makers may also favor the defaulted choice option because it is easier to stay with the pre-selected option than to choose a different option.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, choice architects 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 > Limitations and future directions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zlatev et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“when more effort is necessary to switch away from the pre-selected option, decision-makers may be more likely to stick with the default.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The ways that the three channels are measured in the current research are only noisy approximations, which attenuates our ability to detect systematic differences in the variability in defaults' effectiveness.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Endorsement is thus one mechanism that drives a default's effectiveness: the more decision-makers believe that the default reflects a trusted recommendation, the more effective the default is likely to be.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We note that this variation is likely driven by choice architects' imperfect understanding of the consequences of differences in default designs (Zlatev et al., 2017).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zlatev et al., 2017
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Defaults are effective in part because it is easier for individuals to stay with the pre-selected option than to choose a different option.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Ease
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dinner et al., 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, one study finds that arbitrarily labeling a policy option as the 'status quo' increases the attractiveness of that option (Moshinsky & Bar-Hillel, 2010).”
§ 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 Moshinsky & Bar-Hillel, 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Individuals commonly perceive defaults as conveying an endorsement by the choice architect (McKenzie et al., 2006).”
§ 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 McKenzie et al., 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Thus, defaults constitute a powerful intervention that can meaningfully alter individuals' decisions.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Ease is thus a second mechanism that drives a default's effectiveness: the harder it is for decision-makers to switch away from the pre-selected option, the more effective the default is likely to be.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Do different channels explain variation in default effect size?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The more decision-makers feel endowed with the pre-selected option, the more likely they are to stay with the default as a result of reference-dependent encoding and loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).”
§ 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 Kahneman & Tversky, 1979
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The set of studies included in our meta-analysis lacks this kind of variation, which may partially account for the lack of a statistically significant effect for ease.”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > General discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The coders can accurately identify which channel is activated in each study.
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
“Correlations between channels are not statistically significant (see Appendix B for scatter plots and correlations).”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Coding the activation of the three default channels
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plainn = 73,675- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaincorrelationaln = 73,675- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Abstract
“the 58 default studies (pooled n = 73,675)”
§ When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects > Inclusion criteria
“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
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
