IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v9y2025i2p410-425_17.html

Defaults are not a panacea: distinguishing between default effects on choices and on outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Kalkstein, David A.
  • De Lima, Fabiana
  • Brady, Shannon T.
  • Rozek, Christopher S.
  • Johnson, Eric J.
  • Walton, Gregory M.

Abstract

Recently, defaults have become celebrated as a low-cost and easy-to-implement nudge for promoting positive outcomes, both at an individual and societal level. In the present research, we conducted a large-scale field experiment (N = 32,508) in an educational context to test the effectiveness of a default intervention in promoting participation in a potentially beneficial achievement test. We found that a default manipulation increased the rate at which high school students registered to take the test but failed to produce a significant change in students’ actual rate of test-taking. These results join past literature documenting robust effects of default framings on initial choice but marked variability in the extent to which those choices ultimately translate to real-world outcomes. We suggest that this variability is attributable to differences in choice-to-outcome pathways – the extent to which the initial choice is causally determinative of the outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Kalkstein, David A. & De Lima, Fabiana & Brady, Shannon T. & Rozek, Christopher S. & Johnson, Eric J. & Walton, Gregory M., 2025. "Defaults are not a panacea: distinguishing between default effects on choices and on outcomes," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 410-425, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:9:y:2025:i:2:p:410-425_17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X22000240/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:bpubpo:v:9:y:2025:i:2:p:410-425_17. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    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.