Do nudges make use of automatic processing? Unraveling the effects of a default nudge under type 1 and type 2 processing

References

• Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x.
   Google Scholar
• Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang, H. M., Shu, S. B., & Weber, E. U. (2020). The role of perceived effectiveness on the acceptability of choice architecture. Behavioural Public Policy, 4(1), 50–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.1
   Google Scholar
• Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J., & Galing, S. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bethell-Fox, C. E., & Shepard, R. N. (1988). Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovens, L. (2009). The ethics of nudge. In T. Grüne-Yanoff & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (pp. 207–219). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bruns, H., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Klement, K., Jonsson, M. L., & Rahali, B. (2018). Can nudges be transparent and yet effective? Journal of Economic Psychology, 65, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neys, W. D. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17(5), 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01723.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, K. A., van der Pligt, J., & van Kleef, G. A. (2013). Deliberation versus intuition: Decomposing the role of expertise in judgment and decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., & Liu, K. (2011). Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1058–1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., Handley, S. J., Neilens, H., & Over, D. (2010). The influence of cognitive ability and instructional set on causal conditional inference. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 892–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903111821
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780542000005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gärtner, M. (2018). The prosociality of intuitive decisions depends on the status quo. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 74, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013). Nudge and the manipulation of choice. A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00002762
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010). Debate: To nudge or not to nudge. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horstmann, N., Hausmann, D., & Ryf, S. (2010). Methods for inducing intuitive and deliberate processing modes. In A. Glöckner & C. Witteman (Eds.), Foundations for tracing intuition: Challenges and methods (pp. 219–237). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horstmann, N., Ahlgrimm, A., & Glöckner, A. (2009). How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(5), 335–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jachimowicz, J. M., Duncan, S., Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2019). When and why defaults influence decisions: A meta-analysis of default effects. Behavioral Public Policy, 3(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.43
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. D., Tubau, E., & De Neys, W. (2016). The Doubting System 1: Evidence for automatic substitution sensitivity. Acta Psychologica, 164, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, J. Y., & Mellers, B. A. (2016). American attitudes toward nudges. Judgment & Decision Making, 11(1), 62–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kroese, F. M., Marchiori, D. R., & de Ridder, D. T. (2015). Nudging healthy food choices: A field experiment at the train station. Journal of Public Health, 38(2), e133–e137. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdv096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y., Osman,M., & Ashcroft, R. (2017). Nudge: Concept, effectiveness, andethics. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017
   Google Scholar
• Loewenstein, G., Bryce, C., Hagmann, D., & Rajpal, S. (2015). Warning: You are about to be nudged. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2015.0000
   Google Scholar
• Loewenstein, G., Sunstein, C. R., & Golman, R. (2014). Disclosure: Psychology changes everything. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 391–419. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401 (k) participation and savings behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149–1187. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301753265543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie, C. R. M., Liersch, M. J., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2006). Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychological Science, 17(5), 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01721.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melnikoff, D. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2018). The mythical number two. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & MacInnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.2.187.18731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paunov, Y., Wänke, M., & Vogel, T. (2019a). Ethical defaults: Which transparency components can increase the effectiveness of default nudges? Social Influence, 14(3–4), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2019.1675755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paunov, Y., Wänke, M., & Vogel, T. (2019b). Transparency effects on policy compliance: Disclosing how defaults work can enhance their effectiveness. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.40
   Google Scholar
• Payne, J. W., Samper, A., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (2008). Boundary conditions on unconscious thought in complex decision making. Psychologocical Science, 19(11), 1118–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02212.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00055564
   Google Scholar
• Simohnson, U. (2014). No-Way Interactions. Retrieved from http://datacolada.org/17
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffel, M., Williams, E. F., & Pogacar, R. (2016). Ethically deployed defaults: Transparency and consumer protection through disclosure and preference articulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 865–880. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2016). The ethics of influence: Government in the age of behavioral science. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szaszi, B., Palinkas, A., Palfi, B., Szollosi, A., & Aczel, B. (2017). A systematic scoping review of the choice architecture movement: Toward understanding when and why nudges work. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vetter, M., & Kutzner, F. (2016). Nudge me if you can - how defaults and attitude strength interact to change behavior. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 1(1–3), 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2016.1139390
   Google Scholar
• Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on spring break? The role of predicted, online, and remembered experience in future choice. Psychological Science, 14(5), 520–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.03455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar