Recently, while applying for my driver license in California, I encountered a section about organ donation. The DMV’s (Department of Motor Vehicles) approach is an example of default.
First, they primed me with two statements:
“One person can save up to 8 lives, and heal over 75, through organ and tissue donation for transplantation. You can register regardless of age or health.”
“Organ donation happens after death, and your decision will not impact medical treatment.”
The first statement emphasizes the positive impact, while the second addresses potential concerns. This balanced approach put me at ease and highlighted benefits.
Then comes the question: “Would you like to register?” with two options: “Yes” or “Not at this time.” This is where default comes into play. By framing the question this way, they make saying “yes” feel like the natural choice.
Interestingly, even if I chose “Not at this time,” I was informed that I am still in the registry but without the pink dot on my license that indicates donor status. This opt-out process requires additional steps, making it more likely for people to remain registered.
This example resonates the findings of Johnson & Goldstein’s 2003 study on how defaults influence decision-making. By designing the process this way, the California DMV is likely increasing organ donation rates without forcing anyone’s hand.
***
Reference
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.
“If preferences concerning organ donation are strong, we would expect defaults to have little or no effect. However, as can be seen in the figure, defaults appear to make a large difference: the four opt-in countries (gold) had the lower rates than the six opt-out countries (blue)… One reason these results appear to be greater than those in our laboratory study is that the cost of changing from the default is higher; it involves filling out forms, making phone calls, and sending mail.” (pg. 1339)
