Do Defaults Save Lives?¶
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do Defaults Save Lives?. Science, 302(5649), 1338-1339.
Cited by¶
10 citations across 10 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Mandatory vs. Default Norms
- Madrian and Shea (2001) documented this empirically in their landmark "power of suggestion" study, showing that switching a 401(k) plan from opt-in to opt-out enrollment raised participation rates from roughly 49% to over 86% while concentrating contributors at the default contribution rate and asset allocation; Johnson and Goldstein (2003) found analogous effects for organ-donation consent, where presumed-consent (opt-out) countries exhibited effective consent rates above 85% while opt-in countries clustered below 30%.
This sourceCross-country comparison demonstrating that presumed-consent (opt-out) organ-donation regimes produce effective consent rates above 85% while opt-in regimes cluster below 30%, despite formal availability of opt-out in both cases.
- Madrian and Shea (2001) documented this empirically in their landmark "power of suggestion" study, showing that switching a 401(k) plan from opt-in to opt-out enrollment raised participation rates from roughly 49% to over 86% while concentrating contributors at the default contribution rate and asset allocation; Johnson and Goldstein (2003) found analogous effects for organ-donation consent, where presumed-consent (opt-out) countries exhibited effective consent rates above 85% while opt-in countries clustered below 30%.
Domain-specific¶
- Default Effect
- Johnson and Goldstein's (2003) cross-national analysis of organ-donation consent rates found that countries using opt-out defaults (donation is the default; you must actively decline) had effective consent rates of roughly 85–99%, while opt-in countries had rates of roughly 4–27%, the two distributions not overlapping — a gap the paper attributes to default assignment on the strength of its accompanying randomized experiment rather than to underlying preference differences
This sourceJohnson and Goldstein's comparison of effective organ-donation consent rates across eleven European countries, in which the opt-in and opt-out distributions do not overlap, with the causal reading resting on the paper's accompanying randomised experiment rather than on the country comparison alone. The paper itself — Johnson and Goldstein's Science study pairing a cross-national comparison of organ-donation consent rates with a randomised online default manipulation. The effective-consent-rate ranges in the paper's Figure 1: 4.25–27.5% across the four opt-in countries and 85.9–99.98% across the seven opt-out countries, two distributions with no overlap. The Germany/Austria pair from the paper's Figure 1 — ~12% against ~99.98% effective consent in neighbouring populations differing only in the default — with the causal reading resting on the paper's accompanying randomised experiment rather than on the country comparison alone.
SupportedVerified against the source
- Johnson and Goldstein's (2003) cross-national analysis of organ-donation consent rates found that countries using opt-out defaults (donation is the default; you must actively decline) had effective consent rates of roughly 85–99%, while opt-in countries had rates of roughly 4–27%, the two distributions not overlapping — a gap the paper attributes to default assignment on the strength of its accompanying randomized experiment rather than to underlying preference differences
Mechanisms¶
- Dashboard Framing Review
- Default sensitivity — how hard you scrutinize default filters and sort orders, the settings most users never change.
This sourceDefault settings often remain unchanged and can materially alter aggregate outcomes.
- Default sensitivity — how hard you scrutinize default filters and sort orders, the settings most users never change.
- Default Label Review
- Its strength is that it attacks the strongest form of hidden norm — the default effect, where people disproportionately keep whatever is preselected
This sourceShows that changing the preselected no-action default sharply changes organ-donor consent choices.
- Its strength is that it attacks the strongest form of hidden norm — the default effect, where people disproportionately keep whatever is preselected
- Default-Off High-Stimulation Setting
- Its strength is leverage: defaults are the single highest-impact setting because most people never change them, so an off-by-default high-stimulation mode protects the whole population without forbidding anything.
This sourceFinds that many people retain the assigned no-action option, so changing a default can produce large behavioral effects.
- Its strength is leverage: defaults are the single highest-impact setting because most people never change them, so an off-by-default high-stimulation mode protects the whole population without forbidding anything.
- Default Option Design
- This is the default effect
This sourceShows that countries using presumed-consent defaults have much higher effective organ-donor agreement rates than countries requiring explicit opt-in consent.
- This is the default effect
- Default or Access Path Adjustment
- The reform flips the default to opt-out: everyone is presumed a willing donor unless they tick a box to decline, and the decline box is right there, plainly labeled, one click away.
This sourceDescribes an opt-out donation default in which people are presumed donors unless they actively decline.
- The reform flips the default to opt-out: everyone is presumed a willing donor unless they tick a box to decline, and the decline box is right there, plainly labeled, one click away.
- Default Presets
- Because defaults have real pull, a well-set one can guide people toward a genuinely better common-case outcome without removing their freedom to differ.
This sourceShows that default choices strongly influence decisions while leaving an explicit option to choose otherwise.
- Because defaults have real pull, a well-set one can guide people toward a genuinely better common-case outcome without removing their freedom to differ.
- Opt-In / Opt-Out Design
- The power of defaults is well documented — the default effect famously drives the gulf between opt-in and opt-out organ-donation rates
This sourceDemonstrates large default effects in organ-donation choices, including differences between opt-in and opt-out regimes.
- The power of defaults is well documented — the default effect famously drives the gulf between opt-in and opt-out organ-donation rates
- Safe Default Setting
- Its strength is enormous reach for near-zero cost: because the default effect
This sourceShows that most people retain a preset default even when they remain free to choose the alternative.
- Its strength is enormous reach for near-zero cost: because the default effect
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 10 citations: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:b32c3b937f55 · see in the full table