doi:

DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00868

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2018/50:8 PP.868-879

Nudging:Default option effect and response mode promote organ donor registry participation in China


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 words:organ donation,nudging,default option effect,response mode,sequence effect

ReleaseDate:2018-08-27 09:50:21



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.

Altmann, S., Falk, A., & Grunewald, A. (2013). Incentives and information as driving forces of default effects. IZA Discussion Paper No. 7610. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2329060

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.

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.

Dayan, E., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2011). Nudge to nobesity Ⅱ:Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(4), 333-342.

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.

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 http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3813336a792bbc8b9d40d54248257896000a9a44/$file/3336.pdf

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.

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.

Domínguez, J., & Rojas, J. L. (2013). Presumed consent legislation failed to improve organ donation in Chile. Transplantation Proceedings, 45(4), 1316-1317.

Donate Life Texas 2014 Annual Report. (2014). Partnerships that help Texans save and improve lives. Retrieved October 3, 2017, from https://www.donatelifetexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2014-Donate-Life-Texas-Annual-Report.pdf

Fabre, J. (1998). Organ donation and presumed consent. The Lancet, 352(9122), 150.

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.

Ganzach, Y. (1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome:Judgment versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 113-122.

Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. (2014). Retrieved May 4, 2018, from http://www.transplant-observatory.org/data-reports-2014/

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.

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.

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.]

Huang, J., Mao, Y., & Millis, J. M. (2008). Government policy and organ transplantation in China. The Lancet, 372(9654), 1937-1938.

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.

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.

Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S., & Lohse, G. L. (2002). Defaults, framing and privacy:Why opting in-opting out. Marketing Letters, 13(1), 5-15.

Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302, 1338-1339.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory:An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.

Kaushik, J. (2009). Organ transplant and presumed consent:Towards an "opting out" system. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 6(3), 149-152.

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, 13(4), 335-344.

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.

Li, S. (2016). Neither "carrot" nor "stick":A new shortcut to nudge social development. Management Insights, 6, 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, 6, 92-96.]

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.]

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.

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.

National Donor Designation Report Card 2014. (2014). Retrieved October 3, 2017, from https://www.donatelife.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Report-Card-2014-44222-Final.pdf

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.

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.

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.

Red Cross Society of China Organ Donation Administrative Center. (2018). Retrieved May 5, 2018, from http://www. rcsccod.cn/[中国红十字会中国人体器官捐献管理中心. (2018). 2018-05-05, 取自http://www.rcsccod.cn/]

Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting:Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546-556.

Sun, 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).]

Tang, H. L., & Liu, C. (2004). Some behavioral and functional neuroimaging studies on analogical reasoning. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(2), 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.]

The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. (2007). Retrieved October 17, 2017, from http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2007-04/06/content_574120.htm[中华人民共和国中央人民政府. (2007). 2017-10-17, 取自http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2007-04/06/content_574120.htm]

van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2014). Comparing the effects of defaults in organ donation systems. Social Science & Medicine, 106, 137-142.

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.[王黎, 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.]

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.]

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.]

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

Zúñiga-Fajuri, A. (2015). Increasing organ donation by presumed consent and allocation priority:Chile. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 93(3), 199-202.