IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/daredp/2005.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When do defaults stick and when are they ethical? Taxonomy, sytematic review and design recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Lemken, Dominic

Abstract

In many instances, default nudges are proven to be strong drivers of behavior. However, a number of ethical concerns have been raised. Both, nudge success and ethical concerns, depend heavily on the features of the default nudge, with some of them being shared by defaults in all settings. We systematically review the scientific literature on default nudges from various disciplines and investigate nudge success and ethical concerns with respect to seven main features: (1) the initial state of the choice architecture, (2) the invasiveness, (3) the psychological effect mechanism, (4) the purpose, (5) the visibility, (6) the customization, and (7) the disclosure of the default. When designing a default, as researcher or practitioner, a full consideration of these features is advised. Often enough, choice architects are not aware of the design options. In a nutshell, the welfare losses suffered through the initial choice architecture are often overlooked. Customizations and disclosures of defaults are scarcely used despite easing ethical concerns without negatively affecting nudge success. The psychological effect mechanism, with several ethical implications, remains a theoretical relict that is not empirically researched. Default framing in combination with a choice structuring default can lead to greater nudge success.

Suggested Citation

  • Lemken, Dominic, 2020. "When do defaults stick and when are they ethical? Taxonomy, sytematic review and design recommendations," DARE Discussion Papers 2005, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:2005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/227502/1/1741707056.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Claus Ghesla, 2017. "Defaults in Green Electricity Markets: Preference Match Not Guaranteed," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(S1), pages 37-84.
    3. Kesternich, Martin & Römer, Daniel & Flues, Florens, 2019. "The power of active choice: Field experimental evidence on repeated contribution decisions to a carbon offsetting program," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 76-91.
    4. Löfgren, Åsa & Martinsson, Peter & Hennlock, Magnus & Sterner, Thomas, 2012. "Are experienced people affected by a pre-set default option—Results from a field experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 66-72.
    5. Toke R Fosgaard & Marco Piovesan, 2015. "Nudge for (the Public) Good: How Defaults Can Affect Cooperation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Brune, Lasse & Giné, Xavier & Goldberg, Jessica & Yang, Dean, 2017. "Savings defaults and payment delays for cash transfers: Field experimental evidence from Malawi," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1-13.
    7. Zarghamee, Homa S. & Messer, Kent D. & Fooks, Jacob R. & Schulze, William D. & Wu, Shang & Yan, Jubo, 2017. "Nudging charitable giving: Three field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 137-149.
    8. Felix Ebeling & Sebastian Lotz, 2015. "Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 868-871, September.
    9. Georg Liebig & Jens Rommel, 2014. "Active and Forced Choice for Overcoming Status Quo Bias: A Field Experiment on the Adoption of “No junk mail” Stickers in Berlin, Germany," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 423-435, September.
    10. Hummel, Dennis & Maedche, Alexander, 2019. "How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 47-58.
    11. Bruns, Hendrik & Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Elena & Klement, Katharina & Luistro Jonsson, Marijane & Rahali, Bilel, 2018. "Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 41-59.
    12. Hoffmann, Robert & Cam, Marie-Anne & Camilleri, Adrian R., 2019. "Deciding to invest responsibly: Choice architecture and demographics in an incentivised retirement savings experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 219-230.
    13. Momsen, Katharina & Stoerk, Thomas, 2014. "From intention to action: Can nudges help consumers to choose renewable energy?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 376-382.
    14. Schubert, Christian, 2017. "Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-342.
    15. Hendrik Bruns & Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko & Katharina Klement & Marijane Luistro Jonsson & Bilel Rahali, 2018. "Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?," Post-Print hal-01824076, HAL.
    16. 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.
    17. Carola Stryja & Gerhard Satzger, 2019. "Digital nudging to overcome cognitive resistance in innovation adoption decisions," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(15-16), pages 1123-1139, December.
    18. Thomas de Haan & Jona Linde, 2018. "‘Good Nudge Lullaby’: Choice Architecture and Default Bias Reinforcement," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(610), pages 1180-1206, May.
    19. Ghesla, Claus & Grieder, Manuel & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    20. 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.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:62-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Crow, Kellie & Mathmann, Frank & Greer, Dominique, 2019. "Got a dollar? Locomotion orientation decreases the effect of defaults on charitable giving," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-6.
    23. Aristeidis Theotokis & Emmanouela Manganari, 2015. "The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sustainable Consumer Behavior: The Role of Guilt," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 423-437, October.
    24. d’Adda, Giovanna & Capraro, Valerio & Tavoni, Massimo, 2017. "Push, don’t nudge: Behavioral spillovers and policy instruments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 92-95.
    25. 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).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lemken, Dominic, 2020. "When do defaults stick and when are they ethical? - taxonomy, systematic review and design recommendations," Key Food Choices and Climate Change Project 307568, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    2. Kaiser, Micha & Bernauer, Manuela & Sunstein, Cass R. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2020. "The power of green defaults: the impact of regional variation of opt-out tariffs on green energy demand in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    3. Danuta Miłaszewicz, 2022. "Survey Results on Using Nudges for Choice of Green-Energy Supplier," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, April.
    4. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    5. Helena Fornwagner & Oliver P. Hauser, 2022. "Climate Action for (My) Children," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 95-130, January.
    6. Ghesla, Claus & Grieder, Manuel & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    7. Rehse, Dominik & Tremöhlen, Felix, 2020. "Fostering participation in digital public health interventions: The case of digital contact tracing," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-076, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. von Zahn, Moritz & Bauer, Kevin & Mihale-Wilson, Cristina & Jagow, Johanna & Speicher, Max & Hinz, Oliver, 2022. "The smart green nudge: Reducing product returns through enriched digital footprints & causal machine learning," SAFE Working Paper Series 363, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2022.
    9. Hendrik Bruns & Grischa Perino, 2021. "Point at, nudge, or push private provision of a public good?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 996-1007, July.
    10. Diederich, Johannes & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo, 2021. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Working Papers 0698, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    11. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    12. Schubert, Christian, 2017. "Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-342.
    13. Elisa Gambetti & Micaela Maria Zucchelli & Raffaella Nori & Fiorella Giusberti, 2022. "Default rules in investment decision-making: trait anxiety and decision-making styles," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, December.
    14. Diederich, Johannes & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo, 2023. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Working Papers 0731, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    15. 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).
    16. Alt, Marius & Gallier, Carlo, 2022. "Incentives and intertemporal behavioral spillovers: A two-period experiment on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 959-972.
    17. Michels, Marius & Luo, Hao & Weller von Ahlefeld, Paul Johann & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2023. "Compliance with pre-harvest interval rules in apple production—A comparative analysis of green nudges among fruit growers and agricultural students in Germany," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    18. Leonhard Lades & Federica Nova, 2022. "Ethical Considerations when using Behavioural Insights to Reduce Peoples Meat Consumption," Working Papers 202209, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    19. 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).
    20. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nudging; opt-out; opt-in; status quo; choice architecture; defaulting; welfare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M38 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    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:zbw:daredp:2005. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iagoede.html .

    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.