Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2018, Vol. 50 Issue (8): 868-879    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00868
     “以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展”专栏 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
以小拨大:默认选项和反应模式效应助推中国器官捐献登记 *
黄元娜,宋星云,邵洋,李纾(),梁竹苑()
中国科学院大学心理学系, 北京 100049
Nudging: Default option effect and response mode promote organ donor registry participation in China
Yuan-Na HUANG,Xing-Yun SONG,Yang SHAO,Shu LI(),Zhu-Yuan LIANG()
Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
全文: PDF(501 KB)   HTML 评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

器官短缺是全世界共同面临的难题, 中国器官短缺形势尤为严重。为填补中国器官供需不平衡导致的严重缺口, 本研究试图借鉴行为经济学手段中的默认选项、选项架构等心理学效应, 兼顾总体器官捐献率和捐献器官的数量, 探索提高中国器官捐献水平的可能方法。本研究以中国在校大学生为样本, 通过3个调查研究考察了器官捐献制度和器官捐献登记表设计对我国民众器官捐献登记的影响。研究1在器官捐献制度层面上, 发现在中国文化背景中, “决定退出”制度比“决定参加”制度下的器官捐献登记率更高。研究2在器官捐献登记表设计层面上, 比较采用不同捐献制度的国家/地区的捐献登记表形式对器官捐献登记率的影响, 发现在决定退出制度中的器官捐献率高于决定参加制度, 且前者内各种形式间无明显优劣之分; 但在决定参加制度中, 采用拒绝反应模式登记表形式的器官捐献率最高, 甚至与决定退出制度下的各登记表形式相比不相上下。研究3在具有潜在器官捐献意愿人群中, 探索提高捐献者愿意捐献器官数量的可能途径, 发现使用拒绝反应模式的捐献登记表能够增加捐献登记的器官数量; 且低影响外观器官的捐献率在拒绝反应模式下以升序排列时最高。这些结果说明, 决定退出制度和反应模式等行为经济学手段可以有效助推中国器官捐献行为。鉴此, 政府和相关机构可考虑采取如下措施提高中国的志愿器官捐献水平:或改现行的“决定参加”为“决定退出”的器官捐献制度; 或在现行的“决定参加”器官捐献制度下, 在器官捐献登记表中采用拒绝反应模式, 并按对外观影响大小升序排列捐献器官种类。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
黄元娜
宋星云
邵洋
李纾
梁竹苑
关键词 器官捐献助推默认选项反应模式顺序效应    
Abstract

The global challenge of organ shortage has grown severe in China because of its large population base. To explore the possible means of solving the serious gap caused by demand imbalance, this study attempts to draw lessons from psychological effects, such as default option effect and choice architecture to improve the overall rates of organ donation and number of organs donated. Specifically, we investigated the influence of the organ donation system and registry form design on organ donor registry participation by conducting three online surveys among college students in China.

In Study 1, we compared the organ donation rate of people with a Chinese cultural background under the “opt-in” and “opt-out” systems. The results were consistent with those of foreign studies that the organ donation rate under the “opt-out” system was significantly higher than that under the “opt-in” system. To examine the optimal design of registry forms under these systems, Study 2 compared the organ donation rates under the organ donation registry forms of different countries/regions between these systems. In the “opt-in” system, we selected Japan, Texas (USA), and New York (USA), whereas we selected Cyprus and Wales in the “opt-out” system. The organ donation rates of countries/regions under the “opt-out” system did not show any significant differences although they were higher than those of countries/regions under the “opt-in” system. However, Japan (which uses the “rejection response mode” in its registry form) shows a higher organ donation rate than the other countries/regions under the “opt-in” system and even features the same level compared with the countries/regions under the “opt-out” system. To investigate the possible effect of the response mode on the organ donation registry form, we designed a “selection response mode” version of the registry form as the manipulated contrast of the “rejection response mode” and found that both the rate of willingness to donate and the number of donated organs were higher in the rejection response mode than those in the selection response mode.

Study 3 mainly focuses on the number of donated organs. We manipulated the response mode and other possible factors in organ donation, namely, the influence on the appearance of donors and the presentation order of organs. Consistent with those of Study 2, the results of Study 3 indicated that using the rejection response mode in registry forms considerably boosted the number of donated organs. Moreover, presenting the organs with the lowest influence on the appearance of donors in an ascending order can reach the highest number of donated organs in rejection response modes.

In sum, these results demonstrate that the “opt-out” system and response mode can effectively promote the organ donation behavior in China. Therefore, policymakers may consider the following suggestions to improve the organ donation rates in China: changing its current “opt-in” organ donation system to the “opt-out” system; or, under the current “opt-in” organ donation system, adopting the rejection response mode in registry forms and presenting the organs with the lowest influence on the appearance of donors first.

Key wordsorgan donation    nudging    default option effect    response mode    sequence effect
收稿日期: 2018-03-12      出版日期: 2018-07-02
ZTFLH:  B849:C91  
基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金项目(71471171, 71761167001), 北京市自然科学基金项目(9172019)资助
引用本文:   
黄元娜,宋星云,邵洋,李纾,梁竹苑. 以小拨大:默认选项和反应模式效应助推中国器官捐献登记 *[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 868-879.
Yuan-Na HUANG,Xing-Yun SONG,Yang SHAO,Shu LI,Zhu-Yuan LIANG. Nudging: Default option effect and response mode promote organ donor registry participation in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(8): 868-879.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00868      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2018/V50/I8/868
实验条件 n 男性比例 年龄(M ± SD) 有宗教信仰的比例 器官捐献知识正确率(M ± SD) 器官捐献率(M ± SE)
对照组 74 45.96% 22.66 ± 1.34 6.76% 72.3% ± 11.7% 59.46% ± 6.00%
决定参加 60 51.67% 22.48 ± 1.19 3.33% 75.0% ± 10.2% 68.33% ± 4.74%
决定退出 61 50.82% 22.35 ± 0.97 3.28% 74.8% ± 10.5% 83.61% ± 5.72%
  各器官捐献制度组被试的样本分布及其器官捐献率
实验条件 n 男性比例 年龄(M ± SD) 有宗教
信仰比例
器官捐献知识
正确率(M ± SD)
器官捐献
率(M ± SE)
捐献制度 登记表架构
决定参加 (平均) 460 30.21% 21.47 ± 2.63 7.83% 70.5% ± 10.6% 72.83% ± 4.58%
对照版本 92 31.52% 21.80 ± 2.63 9.78% 70.1% ± 10.6% 69.57% ± 4.78%
问题排列顺序 81 37.03% 21.15 ± 2.80 7.41% 72.2% ± 11.1% 60.49% ± 5.43%
明确选项内涵 126 26.19% 21.52 ± 2.86 7.94% 69.7% ± 11.6% 76.98% ± 3.75%
拒绝反应模式 69 36.23% 20.95 ± 2.01 1.44% 69.6% ± 9.2% 85.51% ± 4.24%
接受反应模式 92 23.91% 21.73 ± 2.49 10.87% 71.1% ± 9.5% 71.74% ± 4.69%
决定退出 (平均) 232 29.31% 20.96 ± 2.50 8.19% 70.6% ± 9.4% 81.90% ± 4.25%
对照版本 104 34.62% 21.17 ± 2.50 11.54% 69.9% ± 10.3% 76.92% ± 4.13%
提供第三个选项 63 25.39% 21.19 ± 2.40 7.93% 70.1% ± 8.6% 80.00% ± 4.78%
询问理由 65 24.61% 20.38 ± 2.54 3.10% 72.4% ± 8.6% 87.93% ± 3.84%
  各制度下不同捐献登记设计形式条件中被试分布与捐献率统计表
实验条件 n 男性比例 年龄(M ± SD) 有宗教信仰比例 器官捐献知识正确率(M ± SD)
反应模式 呈现顺序
拒绝 升序 53 26.42% 21.64 ± 2.40 13.20% 70.0% ± 10.1%
降序 47 17.02% 21.30 ± 2.29 8.51% 69.4% ± 9.1%
接受 升序 46 23.91% 21.52 ± 2.30 6.52% 69.7% ± 10.1%
降序 56 25.00% 21.48 ± 2.78 1.79% 71.7% ± 10.6%
  不同反应模式和呈现顺序条件下被试分布统计表
  研究3中被试器官捐献比例(M ± 1 SE)。(a)在不同反应模式与不同排列顺序下捐献器官数量的比例; (b)被试对于两类不同程度影响外观的器官在不同反应模式与排列顺序下捐献器官数量的比例。
[1] Abadie A. & Gay , S. ( 2006). The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study. Journal of Health Economics,25( 4), 599-620.
pmid: 16490267
[2] Altmann S., Falk A., & Grunewald A . ( 2013). Incentives and information as driving forces of default effects. IZA Discussion Paper No. 7610.Retrieved from
[3] Brown C.L., & Krishna , A. ( 2004). The skeptical shopper: A metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice.Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 529?539.
[4] Chen J., & Proctor, R. W . ( 2017). Role of accentuation in the selection/rejection task framing effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(4),543?568.
pmid: 28383992
[5] Dayan E.., &Bar-Hillel M. . ( 2011). Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment and Decision Making, ( 4), 333-342.
[6] Demir B., & Kumkale, G. T . ( 2013). Individual differences in willingness to become an organ donor: A decision tree approach to reasoned action.Personality and Individual Differences, 55(1),63?69.
[7] Delriviere L.., &Boronovskis H. .( 2011). Adopting an opt-out registration system for organ and tissue donation in Western Australia. A Discussion Paper. Retrieved May 4,2018, from
[8] Dhar R.., &Wertenbroch K. , ( 2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods.Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1),60?71.
[9] 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.
pmid: 21707203
[10] Domínguez J., & Rojas, J. L . ( 2013). Presumed consent legislation failed to improve organ donation in Chile.Transplantation Proceedings, 45(4),1316?1317.
pmid: 23726561
[11] Donate Life Texas 2014 Annual Report. (2014). Partnerships that help Texans save and improve lives. Retrieved October 3, 2017, from
[12] Fabre J ( 1998). Organ donation and presumed consent. The Lancet, 352( 9122), 150.
pmid: 9672313
[13] Freedman J.L., &Fraser S.C . ( 1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2),195?202.
pmid: 5969145
[14] Ganzach Y. ( 1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62113?122.
[15] Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. ( 2014). Retrieved May 4, 2018, from
[16] Goswami I.., & Urminsky , O. ( 2016). When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations.Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5),829?846.
[17] Harel I., Kogut T., Pinchas M., & Slovic P . ( 2017). Effect of media presentations on willingness to commit to organ donation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(20),5159?5164.
pmid: 28461480
[18] Huang B. Z., Xu F. M., Wang L., Ma X. Y., & Wu X. L . ( 2011). Default effect in behavioral decision making.Advances in Psychological Science, 19(11),1675?1683.
[ 黄宝珍, 徐富明, 王岚, 马向阳, 吴修良 . ( 2011). 行为决策中的默认效应. 心理科学进展,19(11),1675?1683.]
[19] Huang J., Mao Y., & Millis J. M . ( 2008). Government policy and organ transplantation in China.The Lancet, 372(9654),1937?1938.
pmid: 18930537
[20] Huang J., Millis J. M., Mao Y., Millis M. A., Sang X., & Zhong S . ( 2012). A pilot programme of organ donation after cardiac death in China.The Lancet, 379(9818),862?865.
pmid: 22078722
[21] Jiang C.-M., Zheng R., Zhou Y., Liang Z.-Y., Rao L.-L., Sun Y., … Li S . ( 2013). Effect of 45-day simulated microgravity on the evaluation of orally reported emergencies. Ergonomics, 56(8),1225?1231.
pmid: 23789793
[22] Johnson E. J., Bellman S., & Lohse G. L . ( 2002). Defaults,framing and privacy: Why opting in-opting out.Marketing Letters, 13(1),5?15.
[23] Johnson E.J., & Goldstein , D. ( 2003). Do defaults save lives? Science,302, 1338?1339.
[24] Kahneman D.., & Tversky , A. ( 1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica, 47(2),263?292.
[25] Kaushik J.., . (2009). Organ transplant and presumed consent: Towards an "opting out" system .Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 6(3),149?152.
pmid: 19653591
[26] Levin I. P., Schreiber J., Lauriola M., & Gaeth G. J . ( 2002). A tale of two pizzas: Building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully-loaded product. Marketing Letters,1%,(4),335-344.
[27] Li D., Hawley Z., & Schnier K . ( 2013). Increasing organ donation via changes in the default choice or allocation rule.Journal of Health Economics,32,6,1117-1129.
pmid: 24135615
[28] Li S. ( 2016). Neither "carrot" nor "stick": A new shortcut to nudge social development.Management Insights, 15, 92-96.
[ 李纾 . ( 2016). 既非“胡萝卜”也非“大棒”: 助推社会发展的一条新捷径. 管理视野, 15, 92-96.]
[29] Li, W J., Zheng Q. Q., & Yao N. L . ( 2009). The impact of information presented order on fairness judgment forming. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology,15(2), 112-119.
[ 李文静, 郑全全, 姚乃琳 . ( 2009). 信息呈现顺序对公平判断形成的影响. 应用心理学, 15(2),112-119.]
[30] Luo A. J., Xie W. Z., Luo J. J., & Ouyang W . ( 2016). Public perception of cadaver organ donation in Hunan province, China. Transplantation Proceedings,48(8), 2571-2576
pmid: 27788783
[31] Mourali M.., &Nagpal A. , ( 2013). The powerful select, the powerless reject: Power's influence in decision strategies. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 874-880.
[32] National Donor Designation Report Card 2014. Retrieved October 3,2017, from
[33] Payne J. W., Bettman J. R., & Johnson E. J . ( 1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective.Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1),87-131.
[34] Pliner P., Hart H., Kohl J., & Saari D . ( 1974). Compliance without pressure: Some further data on the foot-in-the-door technique.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(1), 17-22.
[35] Policastro P., Smith Z., & Chapman G . ( 2017). Put the healthy item first: Order of ingredient listing influences consumer selection. Journal of Health Psychology, 22(7), 853-863.
pmid: 26672109
[36] Red Cross Society of China Organ Donation Administrative Center. ( 2018). Retrieved May 5,2018, from
[ 中国红十字会中国人体器官捐献管理中心. ( 2018. . 2018- 05-05,取自 ]
[37] Shafir E. ( 1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546-556.
pmid: 8350746
[38] Su Z. ( 2017 -04-05). Make a connection for organ donation - donation coordinator's sweet and sour (found beside). People's Daily, 2017-04-05(08).
[ 孙振 . ( 2017-04-05). 为器官捐献牵线搭桥——一位捐献协调员的酸甜苦辣(发现身边) . 人民日报, 2017-04-05(08).]
[39] Tang H.L., &Liu C. , ( 2004). Some behavioral and functional neuroimaging studies on analogical reasoning.Advances in Psychological Science,12, 193-200.
[ 唐慧琳, 刘昌 . ( 2004). 类比推理的影响因素及脑生理基础研究. 心理科学进展 , 12( 2), 193?200.]
[40] The Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. ( 2007). Retrieved October 17, 2017, from 2007).
[ 中华人民共和国中央人民政府. ( 2007. 2017-10-17, 取自民共和国中央人民]
[41] van Dalen, H. P., &Henkens K. . ( 2014). Comparing the effects of defaults in organ donation systems. Social Science & Medicine, 106, 137-142.
pmid: 24561775
[42] , , Wang L., &Zhang X.P, . ( 2010). Chinese public attitudes towards organ donation and influencing factors. Nursing Journal of Chinese People’s Liberation Army, 27(13), 968-971.
王, 张晓萍 . ( 2010). 我国公民对器官捐献的态度及其影响因素. 解放军护理杂志,27( 13),968?971.]
[43] Wu Y.M., & Zhu, J. Y . ( 2011). Preliminary discussion on organ donation and sharing in China (2): Soft presumed consent. Chinese Journal of Transplantation (Electronic Version),, 5(1), 1-4.
[ 吴幼民, 朱继业 . ( 2011). 中国器官捐献与分配相关问题初步探讨(2): 弹性假定同意器官捐献登记系统. 中华移植杂志(电子版),5( 1),1?4.]
[44] Xie W., Z. ( 2013). Current situation and countermeasures study on organ donation after cardiac death in Hunan province (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Central South University, Changsha.
[ 谢文照 . ( 2013). 湖南省心脏死亡器官捐献现状与对策研究(博士学位论文). 中南大学,长沙.]
[45] Zhao C.-X., Shen S.-C., Rao L.-L., Zheng R., Liu H., & Li S . ( 2017). Suffering a loss is good fortune: Myth or reality? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, doi: 10.1002/bdm.2056
doi: 10.1002/bdm.2056
[46] Zú?iga-Fajuri A.., (2015). Increasing organ donation by presumed consent and allocation priority: Chile. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 93(3), 199-202.
pmid: 4339830
[1] Nicolao Bonini,Constantinos Hadjichristidis,Michele Graffeo. 绿色助推[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 814-826.
[2] 何贵兵,李纾,梁竹苑. 以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 803-813.
[3] 路西,HSEE. 联合评估和单独评估:富有潜力的助推手段[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 827-839.
[4] 李爱梅,王海侠,孙海龙,熊冠星,杨韶丽. “长计远虑”的助推效应:怀孕与环境跨期决策 *[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 858-867.
[5] 王晓庄,安晓镜,骆皓爽,徐晟,于馨,胡施雅,王玉涵. 锚定效应助推国民身心健康:两个现场实验 *[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 848-857.
[6] 严燕;姜英杰;杨玲. 价值导向元记忆中价值顺序效应初探[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(10): 1094-1103.
[7] 田伟,辛涛. 基于等级反应模型的规则空间方法[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(2): 249-262.
[8] 丁树良,祝玉芳,林海菁,蔡艳. Tatsuoka 矩阵理论的修正[J]. 心理学报, 2009, 41(02): 175-181.
[9] 罗跃嘉,魏景汉. 跨感觉通路ERP注意成分的研究[J]. 心理学报, 1997, 29(02): 195-201.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn