{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"negative_space_design__behavioral_economics","hypothesis_id":"H2","search_queries":["pre commitment waiting period reflection delay consumer choice experiment commitment device","cooling off period before purchase decision behavioral economics experiment delay confirmation","mandatory waiting period consumer financial contract reflection official regulation","commitment device default overcommitment field experiment savings contract","gambling deposit limit cooling off period increase official regulator commitment limit","self exclusion cooling off confirmation delay commitment gambling product","loss framing commitment device overcommitment cancellation experiment","reflection prompt before binding choice delay experiment decision quality"],"sources":[{"source_id":"PA1","title":"Directive 2014/17/EU on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property","publisher":"EUR-Lex / European Union","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A02014L0017-20180101","source_class":"STANDARD","claims_supported":["Member States must provide consumers at least seven days to compare mortgage-credit offers, assess implications, and make an informed decision.","The period may be a pre-contract reflection period, a post-contract withdrawal period, or both; states may prevent acceptance during up to the first ten days.","Binding offers and standardized information are supplied on durable media, preserving terms during reflection."]},{"source_id":"PA2","title":"When Commitment Fails: Evidence from a Field Experiment","publisher":"Management Science / INFORMS","url":"https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3236","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["In a field experiment, participants selected personalized installment-savings plans and default penalties.","Fifty-five percent of clients defaulted and incurred monetary losses, supporting the problem of incentive-incompatible commitment selection.","More sophisticated participants were more cautious about taking commitments and better able to choose compatible contracts."]},{"source_id":"PA3","title":"Pessimism and Overcommitment","publisher":"University College Dublin School of Economics","url":"https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/entities/publication/af276b0a-2d9f-4da4-94ec-48eaa15254c9","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["A laboratory experiment found excess demand for a device that removed access to a tempting internet option.","A significant share overestimated the material value of commitment, with pessimism about expected performance identified as a likely driver.","The authors caution against actively promoting commitment where temptation imposes limited disutility."]},{"source_id":"PA4","title":"LCCP Condition 3.5.2 – Non-remote ordinary code","publisher":"UK Gambling Commission","url":"https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/licensees-and-businesses/lccp/condition/3-5-2-non-remote-ordinary-code","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["A customer who has decided to self-exclude should be allowed to activate the commitment immediately without a cooling-off period.","A one-day cooling-off period instead applies to a positive request to resume gambling after exclusion.","The code expressly connects that later delay with considering the decision and its implications."]},{"source_id":"PA5","title":"Processing patron-initiated self-exclusions","publisher":"Business Queensland, Queensland Government","url":"https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/hospitality-tourism-sport/liquor-gaming/gaming/exclusions/patron-initiated","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["Queensland self-exclusion is a five-year protective commitment that ordinarily cannot be revoked during its first twelve months.","An initial 24-hour cooling-off period begins when the self-exclusion order is provided.","The interval supplies reversibility after activation rather than blocking initial confirmation."]},{"source_id":"PA6","title":"New deposit limit rules provide clarity for consumers","publisher":"UK Gambling Commission","url":"https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/new-deposit-limit-rules-provide-clarity-for-consumers","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["Operators must prompt customers to set a financial limit before their first deposit and make limits easy to review and alter.","Requests to decrease a financial limit must be implemented immediately.","Current regulatory practice therefore favors immediate protective restriction, not a mandatory pause before adopting it."]},{"source_id":"PA7","title":"Self Control and Liquidity: How to Design a Commitment Contract","publisher":"Russell Sage Foundation","url":"https://www.russellsage.org/research/outputs/self-control-and-liquidity-how-design-commitment-contract","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Experiments randomized commitment-account liquidity and withdrawal restrictions.","When account interest rates were equal, participants allocated more to less-liquid commitments, with the no-early-withdrawal account attracting the largest allocation.","Commitment severity can itself affect selection, although the research did not test a reflection interval."]}],"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"EU mortgage-credit reflection period","similarity":"It institutionalizes protected time between receiving consequential, durable terms and becoming bound, expressly to permit comparison, implication assessment, and informed choice; jurisdictions may prohibit acceptance during part of that period.","remaining_difference":"It governs creditor contracts rather than voluntary self-binding devices, is not conditioned on loss framing, and does not test cancellation, default, and target attainment among accepters.","source_ids":["PA1"]},{"name":"Queensland self-exclusion cooling-off period","similarity":"It attaches a defined cooling interval to an unusually durable, individually chosen behavioral commitment.","remaining_difference":"The order activates before the interval and remains revocable for 24 hours, whereas H2 requires an action-free interval before confirmation.","source_ids":["PA5"]},{"name":"Regulated UK gambling-limit and self-exclusion practice","similarity":"It uses explicit temporal rules, review opportunities, and reactivation conditions around consumer-chosen behavioral restrictions.","remaining_difference":"Protective limits and self-exclusion are deliberately activated immediately; cooling-off is reserved for loosening or reversing protection, making this an important contrary design convention rather than the proposed pre-binding pause.","source_ids":["PA4","PA6"]},{"name":"Commitment-contract overselection and default research","similarity":"It documents harmful or excessive self-binding, sensitivity to commitment severity, and subsequent default or material loss.","remaining_difference":"The studies vary contract design or observe misselection but do not isolate a minimally cued pre-confirmation interval following loss framing.","source_ids":["PA2","PA3","PA7"]}],"overlapping_components":["Protected interval between consequential terms and final binding","Durable or recoverable presentation of commitment terms","Explicit acceptance or reactivation trigger","Consumer-selected costly-to-exit restriction","Protection against hurried or poorly fitted commitment","Observed overcommitment, default, or material loss","Temporal guardrails around adopting or reversing behavioral limits"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"After exposure to a loss-framed offer for a voluntary savings, debt-repayment, or usage-limit commitment, a minimally cued action-free pre-confirmation interval—while keeping terms accessible and holding other friction constant—reduces 30-day cancellation or default among accepters without reducing target-behavior achievement.","claim_falsifier":"A randomized immediate-confirmation comparison would falsify the claim if the interval failed to reduce 30-day cancellation or default, increased either outcome, or reduced target achievement; a pre-existing study or deployed system matching the loss-framed, pre-confirmation, self-binding design and outcomes would also eliminate the claimed prior-art distinction.","problem_support":"MODERATE","recommendation":"RESEARCH","world_novelty_boundary":"The bounded eight-query search found established pre-contract reflection periods, cooling-off around self-exclusion, immediate-activation conventions for protective limits, and direct evidence of harmful commitment selection, but no opened source directly tested an action-free pause immediately after loss framing and before confirmation of a voluntary self-binding device using both durability and target-attainment outcomes; novelty beyond that conjunction is not supported."}