IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v126y2022i9p899-905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does default organ donation registration compromise autonomous choice? Public responses to a new donor registration system

Author

Listed:
  • Wachner, Jonas
  • Adriaanse, Marieke
  • Hoven, Mariette van den
  • de Ridder, Denise

Abstract

Defaults have been shown to increase the number of organ donor registrations but it is unclear whether they violate personal autonomy of the people being registered. The implementation of a new Donor Act in the Netherlands, providing people with the opportunity for active registration before being defaulted, allowed for examining to what extent default registration affects personal autonomy and associated concepts. In an online survey among a representative sample (N = 1259), four groups were compared regarding autonomy, decision-making competence, decision satisfaction, and being pressured to register as a donor: people (1) who had registered their status prior to the Donor Act, (2) who had not yet received an invitation for default registration, (3) who had received an invitation and then registered their choice, and (4) who had received an invitation but took no action and were defaulted into donor registration. We found that among the three groups who were the target population of the new arrangement, people who registered their status reported relatively high levels of autonomy and related concepts. However, people who were invited to register but passed the opportunity to respond reported lower scores on these outcomes. We conclude that default organ donation registration may bear negative consequences for a minority of people who feel unable to take action after having been invited to make a choice for registration.

Suggested Citation

  • Wachner, Jonas & Adriaanse, Marieke & Hoven, Mariette van den & de Ridder, Denise, 2022. "Does default organ donation registration compromise autonomous choice? Public responses to a new donor registration system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 899-905.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:126:y:2022:i:9:p:899-905
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.07.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851022001853
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.07.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2016. "When should the ask be a nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations," Natural Field Experiments 00659, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Jonas Wachner & Marieke A Adriaanse & Denise T D De Ridder, 2021. "The effect of nudges on autonomy in hypothetical and real life settings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, August.
    3. François Sainfort & Bridget C. Booske, 2000. "Measuring Post-decision Satisfaction," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 51-61, January.
    4. Brigitte C. Madrian & Dennis F. Shea, 2001. "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1149-1187.
    5. Ulf Liebe & Jennifer Gewinner & Andreas Diekmann, 2021. "Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(5), pages 576-585, May.
    6. van Dalen, Hendrik P. & Henkens, Kène, 2014. "Comparing the effects of defaults in organ donation systems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 137-142.
    7. Jachimowicz, Jon M. & Duncan, Shannon & Weber, Elke U. & Johnson, Eric J., 2019. "When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 159-186, November.
    8. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
    9. Cass Sunstein, 2015. "Nudges Do Not Undermine Human Agency," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 207-210, September.
    10. Vugts, Anastasia & Van Den Hoven, Mariã‹Tte & De Vet, Emely & Verweij, Marcel, 2020. "How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 108-123, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. de Ridder, Denise & Adriaanse, Marieke & van Gestel, Laurens & Wachner, Jonas, 2023. "How does nudging the COVID-19 vaccine play out in people who are in doubt about vaccination?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Ridder, Denise & Adriaanse, Marieke & van Gestel, Laurens & Wachner, Jonas, 2023. "How does nudging the COVID-19 vaccine play out in people who are in doubt about vaccination?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    2. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    3. Meier, Johanna & Andor, Mark A. & Doebbe, Friederike C. & Haddaway, Neal R. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Review: Do green defaults reduce meat consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Liu, Xin & Zhao, Ning & Li, Shu & Zheng, Rui, 2022. "Opt-out policy and its improvements promote COVID-19 vaccinations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    5. Hoover, Hanna, 2022. "Nudges as norms: Evidence from the NYC taxi cab industry," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Lars Behlen & Oliver Himmler & Robert Jäckle, 2023. "Defaults and effortful tasks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(5), pages 1022-1059, November.
    8. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    9. Löfgren, Åsa & Nordblom, Katarina, 2020. "A theoretical framework of decision making explaining the mechanisms of nudging," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Enrico Rubaltelli & Lorella Lotto, 2021. "Nudging freelance professionals to increase their retirement pension fund contributions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 551-565, March.
    11. Briscese, Guglielmo, 2019. "Generous by default: A field experiment on designing defaults that align with past behaviour on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Waichman, Israel, 2023. "Self-nudging is more ethical, but less efficient than social nudging," VfS Annual Conference 2023 (Regensburg): Growth and the "sociale Frage" 277679, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Saccardo, Silvia & Li, Charis X. & Samek, Anya & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Nudging generosity in consumer elective pricing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-104.
    14. Fatas, Enrique & Restrepo-Plaza, Lina, 2022. "When losses can be a gain. A large lab-in-the-field experiment on reference dependent forgiveness in Colombia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    15. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Waichman, Israel, 2022. "Self-Nudging vs. Social Nudging in Social Dilemmas: An Experiment," Working Papers 0710, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:551-565 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Rita Abdel Sater, 2021. "Essays on the application of behavioural insights to environmental policy [Essais sur l’application des connaissances comportementales aux politiques environnementales]," SciencePo Working papers tel-03450909, HAL.
    18. Wang, Wenjie & Ida, Takanori & Shimada, Hideki, 2020. "Default effect versus active decision: Evidence from a field experiment in Los Alamos," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    19. Schulz, Jonathan F. & Thiemann, Petra & Thöni, Christian, 2018. "Nudging generosity: Choice architecture and cognitive factors in charitable giving," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 139-145.
    20. Timmons, Shane & McGowan, Féidhlim P. & Lunn, Peter D., 2019. "Setting defaults for online banking transactions: Experimental evidence from personal loan repayment terms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 161-165.
    21. Leonhard K. Lades & Ewa Zawojska & Robert J. Johnston & Nick Hanley & Liam Delaney & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2022. "Anomalies or Expected Behaviors? Understanding Stated Preferences and Welfare Implications in Light of Contemporary Behavioral Theory," Working Papers 2022-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    22. Mette T. Damgaard, 2020. "A decade of nudging: What have we learned?," Economics Working Papers 2020-07, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:126:y:2022:i:9:p:899-905. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.