5 ms·

Defaults very clearly work in matters such as consent to organ donation. In countries where you need to opt out of organ donation, few people bother to do so.

Defaults very clearly work in matters such as consent to organ donation. In countries where you need to opt out of organ donation, few people bother to do so. Another question is whether this increases the total amount of successful donations. I was looking around for studies and found this one [1], which basically says "in some countries, yes". [1] https://behavioralpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Does-changing-defaults-save-lives_-Effectd-of-presumed-consent-organ-donation-policies.pdf https://behavioralpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Does...

iudqnolq 4y ago
I've heard people argue that that effect isn't a nudge, it's deceit. That is, all you're doing is tricking people who didn't read carefully. People don't know they've opted in and would opt out if you called and told them that they checked the box. I find it generally plausible that defaults don't matter much for what people consider very important decisions. I have minimal experience in this area, though.
manwe150 4y ago
There is also some research suggesting that defaults in organ donation (so called presumed consent) may decrease rates of actual donations in those countries. I can't find the original podcast where I heard about it (I assume related to either Planet Money or Freakonomics), but found this source: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/09/25/organ-donation-presumed-consent-and-focusing-on-what-matters/ https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/09/25/organ-donati...
jjgreen 4y ago
Without consent, it's not a donation. "Harvesting" would be an appropriate name.
- salawat 4y ago
  Consider that 401k's are an onramp through which one delegates one's capital to be allocated by someone else, and it should be obvious the objective. Capital wants to have the spigot left on. If people don't feed the beast voluntarily, Capital will make that the default.

iudqnolq 4y ago

I've heard people argue that that effect isn't a nudge, it's deceit. That is, all you're doing is tricking people who didn't read carefully. People don't know they've opted in and would opt out if you called and told them that they checked the box. I find it generally plausible that defaults don't matter much for what people consider very important decisions. I have minimal experience in this area, though.

manwe150 4y ago

There is also some research suggesting that defaults in organ donation (so called presumed consent) may decrease rates of actual donations in those countries. I can't find the original podcast where I heard about it (I assume related to either Planet Money or Freakonomics), but found this source: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/09/25/organ-donation-presumed-consent-and-focusing-on-what-matters/ https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/09/25/organ-donati...

jjgreen 4y ago

Without consent, it's not a donation. "Harvesting" would be an appropriate name.

salawat 4y ago
Consider that 401k's are an onramp through which one delegates one's capital to be allocated by someone else, and it should be obvious the objective. Capital wants to have the spigot left on. If people don't feed the beast voluntarily, Capital will make that the default.