Default Nudges by Patrik Michaelsen & Cass R. Sunstein

Author:Patrik Michaelsen & Cass R. Sunstein
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783031215582
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Transparency and Perceptions of Default Nudges

The goal of increasing the transparency of a nudge, then, is to ensure against manipulation or undue influence (including the influence that is effective because people are not paying attention to it). We have seen that a nudge disclosure in general seems not to affect the influence of defaults on choices. We have also noted that people approve more of nudges that are perceived to be transparent. Does this mean that defaults will receive more favorable evaluations if accompanied by a disclosure statement? And if so, will this always be the case?

Michaelsen and colleagues investigated these questions in a series of experiments with a charity donation choice (recall, an application context where defaults receive the lowest approval ratings; Michaelsen et al., 2020). In particular, we were interested in fairness perceptions of (transparent) default nudges, and how different methods to obtain these evaluations may shape them. More specifically, we tested how a transparent default was evaluated on its own and when compared to a default without a disclosure statement (joint vs. separate evaluation), as well as if evaluations shifted when participants were actually subjected to the nudge in a choice task. The results, it turned out, were that transparency could both increase and decrease fairness ratings, depending on the circumstances of the evaluation.

The experiments all concerned a charity donation choice, by which a 20₡ bonus payment could be donated to the benefit of a pediatric charity organization or kept for oneself. Participants evaluated three ways of formatting the choice architecture, or more specifically, three ways of applying defaults to the choice. One was with donation of the bonus set as the default choice (opt-out default format), a second was the same but with a disclosure statement added (transparent opt-out default format), and a third had the default set to keep the money for oneself (opt-in default format). The disclosure statement in the transparent condition informed participants about the presence of the nudge (that an alternative was preselected) and how the nudge was expected to influence participants (increased likelihood of donation). It read:Please Note! Donating the bonus is presented as the default (pre-selected) option. This is meant to make people more likely to donate.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.