The framing effect leads people to prefer a sure alternative over a risky one (risk aversion) when alternatives are described as potential gains compared to a context-dependent reference point. The reverse (risk propensity) happens when the same alternatives are described as potential losses. The default effect is the tendency to prefer a preselected alternative over other non-preselected given options, without facilitating nor incentivizing the choice. These two effects have mainly been studied separately. Here we provided novel empirical evidence of additive effects due to the application of both framing and default within the same decision problem in a large sample size (N = 960). In the baseline condition, where no default was provided, we measured the proportion of risky choices in life-or-death and financial decisions both presented in terms of potential gains or losses following the structure of the Asian disease problem. In the sure default condition, the same layout was proposed with a flag on the sure option, whereas in the risky default condition, the flag was on the risky option. In both default conditions, we asked participants whether they wanted to change the preselected option. Overall, the comparison between these conditions revealed three distinct main effects: (i) a classic framing effect, (ii) a larger risk propensity in the life-or-death scenario than in the financial one, and (iii) a larger default effect when the flag was on the risky, rather than on the sure, option. Therefore, we conclude that default options can enhance risk propensity. Finally, individual beliefs about the source of the default significantly moderated the strength of the effect. Underlying mechanisms and practical implications are discussed considering prominent theories in this field.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.