Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2018, Vol. 50 Issue (8) : 868-879     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00868
Special Column: Behavioral decision-making is nudging China toward the overall revitalization |
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
Download: PDF(501 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
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.

Keywords organ donation      nudging      default option effect      response mode      sequence effect     
ZTFLH:  B849:C91  
Issue Date: 02 July 2018
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Yuan-Na HUANG
Xing-Yun SONG
Yang SHAO
Shu LI
Zhu-Yuan LIANG
Cite this article:   
Yuan-Na HUANG,Xing-Yun SONG,Yang SHAO, et al. Nudging: Default option effect and response mode promote organ donor registry participation in China[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(8): 868-879.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00868     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/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%
  
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%
  
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%
  
  
[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 url: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016762960600004X
[2] Altmann S., Falk A., & Grunewald A . ( 2013). Incentives and information as driving forces of default effects. IZA Discussion Paper No. 7610.Retrieved from
url: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2329060
[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.
url: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jcr/31/3
[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 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/28383992
[5] Dayan E.., &Bar-Hillel M. . ( 2011). Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment and Decision Making, ( 4), 333-342.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-16539-007
[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
url: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3813336a792bbc8b9d40d54248257896000a9a44/file/3336.pdf
[8] Dhar R.., &Wertenbroch K. , ( 2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods.Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1),60?71.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558541
[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 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/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 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/23726561
[11] Donate Life Texas 2014 Annual Report. (2014). Partnerships that help Texans save and improve lives. Retrieved October 3, 2017, from
url: https://www.donatelifetexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2014-Donate-Life-Texas-Annual-Report.pdf
[12] Fabre J ( 1998). Organ donation and presumed consent. The Lancet, 352( 9122), 150.
pmid: 9672313 url: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673698850617
[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 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/5969145
[14] Ganzach Y. ( 1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62113?122.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1995-39546-001
[15] Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. ( 2014). Retrieved May 4, 2018, from
url: http://www.transplant-observatory.org/data-reports-2014/
[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.
url: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733314
[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 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/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.
url: 年度引用
[18] [ 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.]
url: 年度引用
[19] Huang J., Mao Y., & Millis J. M . ( 2008). Government policy and organ transplantation in China.The Lancet, 372(9654),1937?1938.
pmid: 18930537 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/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 url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673611610866
[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 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/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.
url: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1015044207315
[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 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/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 url: http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3855900/
[28] Li S. ( 2016). Neither "carrot" nor "stick": A new shortcut to nudge social development.Management Insights, 15, 92-96.
[28] [ 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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yyxlx200902003
[29] [ 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.]
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/yyxlx200902003
[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 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/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.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296311004127
[32] National Donor Designation Report Card 2014. Retrieved October 3,2017, from
url: https://www.donatelife.net/wp-content/ uploads/2016/06/Report-Card-2014-44222-Final.pdf
[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.
url: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000511
[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.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103174900535
[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 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26672109
[36] Red Cross Society of China Organ Donation Administrative Center. ( 2018). Retrieved May 5,2018, from
url: http://www.rcsccod.cn/
[36] [ 中国红十字会中国人体器官捐献管理中心. ( 2018. . 2018- 05-05,取自 ]
url: http://www.rcsccod.cn/
[37] Shafir E. ( 1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546-556.
pmid: 8350746 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/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).
[38] [ 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.
url: http://www.cqvip.com/QK/80511A/200402/9329484.html
[39] [ 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.]
url: http://www.cqvip.com/QK/80511A/200402/9329484.html
[40] The Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. ( 2007). Retrieved October 17, 2017, from 2007).
url: http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2007-04/06/content_574120.htm
[40] [ 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]
url: http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2007-04/06/content_574120.htm
[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 url: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jfjhlzz201013003
[42] 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.]
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jfjhlzz201013003
[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.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zhyzzz201101001
[43] [ 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.]
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zhyzzz201101001
[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.
[44] [ 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 url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2056/full
[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 url: http://www.who.int/entity/bulletin/volumes/93/3/14-139535.pdf
[1] Bonini Nicolao,Hadjichristidis Constantinos,Graffeo Michele. Green nudging[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(8): 814-826.
[2] ZHAN Peida;Wen-Chung WANG;WANG Lijun;LI Xiaomin. The Multidimensional Testlet-Effect Rasch Model[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(8): 1208-1222.
[3] YAN Yan;JIANG Yingjie;YANG Ling. The Effect of Value Sequence on Value-directed Metamemory[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(10): 1094-1103.
[4] LUO Fen,DING Shu-Liang,WANG Xiao-Qing. Dynamic and Comprehensive Item Selection Strategies for Computerized Adaptive Testing Based on Graded Response Model[J]. , 2012, 44(3): 400-412.
[5] TIAN Wei,XIN Tao. A Polytomous Extension of Rule Space Method Based on Graded Response Model[J]. , 2012, 44(2): 249-262.
[6] LUO-Huan,DING Shu-Liang,WANG Wen-Yi,YU Xiao-Feng,CAO Hui-Yuan. Attribute Hierarchy Method Based on Graded Response Model with Different Scoring-Weight for Attributes[J]. , 2010, 42(04): 528-538.
[7] Zhu Yu-Fang,Ding Shu-Liang. A Polytomous Extension of Attribute Hierarchy Method
Based on Graded Response Model
[J]. , 2009, 41(03): 267-275.
[8] LUO Zhao-Sheng, OUYANG Xue-Lian, QI Shu-Qing, DAI Hai-Qi,,DING Shu-Liang. IRT Information Function of Polytomously Scored Items under the Graded Response Model[J]. , 2008, 40(11): 1212-1220.
[9] Dai Haiqi,Chen Dezhi,Ding Shuliang,Deng Taiping. The Comparison Among Item Selection Strategies of CAT with Multiple-choice Items[J]. , 2006, 38(05): 778-783.
[10] Chen-Ping,Ding-Shuliang,Lin-,Zhou-Jie. Item Selection Strategies of Computerized Adaptive Testing based on Graded Response Model[J]. , 2006, 38(03): 461-467.
[11] Zhou-Jun,Ou-Dongming,-Xu-Shuyuan,Dai-Haiqi1,Qi-Shuqing. Item Characteristic Curve Equating under Graded Response Models in IRT[J]. , 2005, 37(06): 832-838.
[12] Guo Qingke,Meng Qingmao. APPLICABILITY OF ITEM RESPONSE THEORY IN SELF-REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE[J]. , 2005, 37(02): 275-279.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech