Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Sep 18;109(38):15201-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211695109. Epub 2012 Sep 4.
Rates of participation in organ donation programs are known to be powerfully influenced by the relevant default policy in effect ("opt-in" vs. "opt-out"). Three studies provide evidence that this difference in participation may occur in part because the requirement to opt-in or opt-out results in large differences in the meaning that individuals attach to participation. American participants in Study 1 rated participation as a significantly more substantial action when agreement was purportedly obtained under opt-in rather than opt-out conditions, and nonagreement as a greater abrogation of responsibility when that decision was made under opt-out rather than under opt-in conditions. Study 2 replicated these findings with respondents who live in Germany, which employs an opt-in donation policy, and in Austria, which has an opt-out policy. Study 3 required American participants to rate various actions that differ in the effort and self-sacrifice they demand. As predicted, the placement of organ donation on the resulting multidimensional scaling dimension differed significantly depending on whether it purportedly was made in an opt-in country (where it was considered roughly akin to giving away half of one's wealth to charity upon one's death) or an opt-out country (where it fell between letting others get ahead of one in line and volunteering some time to help the poor). We discuss the relationship between this change of meaning account and two other mechanisms-behavioral inertia and implicit norms-that we believe underlie the default effect in decision making and other effects of policies designed to influence decision-makers.
器官捐赠计划的参与率众所周知受到有效默认政策的强烈影响(“选择加入”与“选择退出”)。三项研究提供了证据,表明这种参与率的差异可能部分是因为选择加入或选择退出的要求导致个人对参与的意义产生了巨大差异。在第一项研究中,美国参与者在据称是在选择加入而不是选择退出的情况下获得同意时,将参与评定为一项更为实质性的行动,而在选择退出而不是选择加入的情况下做出不同意的决定时,则认为这是更大的责任放弃。第二项研究在居住在实行选择加入捐赠政策的德国和实行选择退出政策的奥地利的受访者中复制了这些发现。第三项研究要求美国参与者对各种在努力和自我牺牲方面存在差异的行动进行评分。正如预测的那样,根据器官捐赠据称是在选择加入的国家(在那里,它被认为大致类似于在死亡时将自己一半的财富捐给慈善机构)还是选择退出的国家(在那里,它介于让他人在自己之前排队和自愿花一些时间帮助穷人),器官捐赠在多维尺度上的位置差异显著。我们讨论了这种意义变化的解释与我们认为构成决策中默认效应和其他旨在影响决策者的政策效应的另外两个机制——行为惯性和内隐规范——之间的关系。