Literature DB >> 22949639

The meaning of default options for potential organ donors.

Shai Davidai1, Thomas Gilovich, Lee D Ross.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22949639      PMCID: PMC3458339          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1211695109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  6 in total

1.  Medicine. Do defaults save lives?

Authors:  Eric J Johnson; Daniel Goldstein
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-11-21       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Normative misperception and the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms on college student gambling.

Authors:  Mary E Larimer; Clayton Neighbors
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2003-09

3.  The doctrine of suggestion, prestige and imitation in social psychology.

Authors:  S E ASCH
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1948-09       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Recommendations implicit in policy defaults.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie; Michael J Liersch; Stacey R Finkelstein
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-05

5.  Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: some consequences of misperceiving the social norm.

Authors:  D A Prentice; D T Miller
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1993-02

6.  Choosing versus rejecting: why some options are both better and worse than others.

Authors:  E Shafir
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-07
  6 in total
  16 in total

1.  Presumed Consent: A Potential Tool for Countries Experiencing an Organ Donation Crisis.

Authors:  Sammy Saab; Satvir S Saggi; Mizna Akbar; Gina Choi
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Will the unusual become usual? A new legal change that aims to increase discussions around organ and tissue donation in England.

Authors:  Heena Khiroya; Adnan Sharif; June Jones; Derek Willis
Journal:  Future Healthc J       Date:  2021-03

3.  A nudge towards better lumbar puncture practice.

Authors:  Christian Holland; Evan C Edmond; Catherine Moore; Vanessa Tobert; Johannes C Klein; Martin R Turner
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.659

4.  Exploiting asymmetric signals from choices through default selection.

Authors:  Lim M Leong; Yidan Yin; Craig R M McKenzie
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-02

Review 5.  Default neglect in attempts at social influence.

Authors:  Julian J Zlatev; David P Daniels; Hajin Kim; Margaret A Neale
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  The current status and future perspectives of organ donation in Japan: learning from the systems in other countries.

Authors:  Akihiko Soyama; Susumu Eguchi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 2.549

7.  Effect of media presentations on willingness to commit to organ donation.

Authors:  Inbal Harel; Tehila Kogut; Meir Pinchas; Paul Slovic
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Healthcare students support opt-out organ donation for practical and moral reasons.

Authors:  Long Qian; Miah T Li; Kristen L King; Syed Ali Husain; David J Cohen; Sumit Mohan
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 5.926

9.  An opt-out model for kidney transplant referral: The time has come.

Authors:  Anne M Huml; John R Sedor; Emilio Poggio; Rachel E Patzer; Jesse D Schold
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2020-07-05       Impact factor: 8.086

10.  An international comparison of deceased and living organ donation/transplant rates in opt-in and opt-out systems: a panel study.

Authors:  Lee Shepherd; Ronan E O'Carroll; Eamonn Ferguson
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 11.150

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.