The Power of Suggestion¶
Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001). The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149-1187.
Cited by¶
6 citations across 6 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 sourceLandmark empirical study showing that switching 401(k) plans from opt-in to opt-out enrollment raised participation from ~49% to over 86% and concentrated contributors at the default contribution rate and asset allocation—canonical evidence of default-rule power.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Supports higher participation under automatic enrollment and persistence of default contribution and fund choices; the 49% and 86% figures are not in the abstract.
“401(k) participation is significantly higher under automatic enrollment.”
- 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%.
- Substrate-Cued Behavior Recruitment
- Retirement-savings default enrollment is the pattern in its most analyzed, near-experimental form — the canonical case from choice architecture.
This sourceShows that switching the default from opt-in to automatic enrollment sharply raises participation with no change in economic terms — the canonical demonstration that a default (substrate) recruits the behavior and the attribution belongs to the default, not the population.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The work's own abstract reports that automatic enrollment sharply raises 401(k) participation and that participants retain the default, which is the substance of the claim; it does not call itself the canonical or most-analyzed case.
“401(k) participation is significantly higher under automatic enrollment”
- Retirement-savings default enrollment is the pattern in its most analyzed, near-experimental form — the canonical case from choice architecture.
Domain-specific¶
- Default Effect
- Madrian and Shea (2001) found that switching 401(k) enrollment from opt-in to opt-out raised participation at a single firm from 37% among comparable-tenure hires before the change to 86% among those hired after it
This sourceThe single-firm automatic-enrolment result: 401(k) participation of 37% among comparable-tenure hires under affirmative enrolment against 86% among those hired after the default was switched on, the plan's terms otherwise unchanged.
SupportedVerified against the source
- Madrian and Shea (2001) found that switching 401(k) enrollment from opt-in to opt-out raised participation at a single firm from 37% among comparable-tenure hires before the change to 86% among those hired after it
Mechanisms¶
- Default Enrollment with Notice
- Its strength is that it delivers a widely-beneficial outcome to exactly the people who would otherwise miss it through no real preference, while leaving preference-holders free — the well-documented power of a good default paired with honest disclosure.
This sourceFinds that automatic enrollment substantially increases retirement-plan participation while preserving employees’ ability to opt out or choose a different contribution.
- Its strength is that it delivers a widely-beneficial outcome to exactly the people who would otherwise miss it through no real preference, while leaving preference-holders free — the well-documented power of a good default paired with honest disclosure.
- Default Path Redesign
- The behavior moves not because anyone was persuaded again but because the path of no-decision was rerouted, and the opt-out is what keeps it a nudge rather than a trap.
This sourceShows that changing the default enrollment path changes participation through inertia without requiring renewed persuasion.
- The behavior moves not because anyone was persuaded again but because the path of no-decision was rerouted, and the opt-out is what keeps it a nudge rather than a trap.
- Default Switch with Protected Opt-Out
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 3 of 6 citations: 1 supported, 2 supported in part. 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:be8b4858f9e9 · see in the full table