{"id":{"repo_id":"odu","oai_identifier":"oai:digitalcommons.odu.edu:psychology_etds-1108"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/odu/oai:digitalcommons.odu.edu:psychology_etds-1108","repository":{"repo_id":"odu","name":"Old Dominion University","base_url":"https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/do/oai/"},"display":{"title":"Default Effects in the Endorsement of Environmental Policies","abstract":"<p>When making decisions, people are often presented with a default option. Across many different domains, individuals show an inflated preference for the default option, a phenomenon known as the default effect. The current research examined the default effect and the role of loss aversion and implied endorsement in the context of environmental policy. Two hundred nineteen undergraduate participants were asked to vote on an ostensible ballot question regarding the enactment of seven environmental policies. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions based on a manipulation of the default option: a default to enact the policy (the opt-out condition), a default to not enact the policy (the opt-in condition), and a forced-choice control condition. The current study found default effects to be present for three of the seven policies. Of these three policies, participants in the opt-out default condition endorsed the policy more often than participants in the opt-in or forced-choice condition. This pattern of results supports the endowment effect (i.e., an extension of loss aversion) as an explanation of default effects, but an explicit measure of loss aversion did not. Perceptions of policymaker endorsement did not differ across default conditions and political affiliation did not predict voting behavior.</p>","abstract_html":"&lt;p&gt;When making decisions, people are often presented with a default option. Across many different domains, individuals show an inflated preference for the default option, a phenomenon known as the default effect. The current research examined the default effect and the role of loss aversion and implied endorsement in the context of environmental policy. Two hundred nineteen undergraduate participants were asked to vote on an ostensible ballot question regarding the enactment of seven environmental policies. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions based on a manipulation of the default option: a default to enact the policy (the opt-out condition), a default to not enact the policy (the opt-in condition), and a forced-choice control condition. The current study found default effects to be present for three of the seven policies. Of these three policies, participants in the opt-out default condition endorsed the policy more often than participants in the opt-in or forced-choice condition. This pattern of results supports the endowment effect (i.e., an extension of loss aversion) as an explanation of default effects, but an explicit measure of loss aversion did not. Perceptions of policymaker endorsement did not differ across default conditions and political affiliation did not predict voting behavior.&lt;/p&gt;","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Bent, Blake J."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Science (MS)","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Philip Langlais","Poornima Madhavan","J. Christopher Brill"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2014,"date_issued":"2014-04-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2014-04-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:34:25Z","subjects":["Decision making","Default effect","Environment","Policy","Experimental Analysis of Behavior"],"languages":[],"rights":["<p>In Copyright. URI: <a href=\"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/\">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).</p>"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["9781303994128"],"render_values":[{"text":"9781303994128","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/118","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Philip Langlais","Poornima Madhavan","J. Christopher Brill"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Bent, Blake J."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-04-02T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science (MS)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Decision making","Default effect","Environment","Policy","Experimental Analysis of Behavior"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["<p>In Copyright. URI: <a href=\"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/\">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).</p>"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["9781303994128","https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/118"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["<p>When making decisions, people are often presented with a default option. Across many different domains, individuals show an inflated preference for the default option, a phenomenon known as the default effect. The current research examined the default effect and the role of loss aversion and implied endorsement in the context of environmental policy. Two hundred nineteen undergraduate participants were asked to vote on an ostensible ballot question regarding the enactment of seven environmental policies. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions based on a manipulation of the default option: a default to enact the policy (the opt-out condition), a default to not enact the policy (the opt-in condition), and a forced-choice control condition. The current study found default effects to be present for three of the seven policies. Of these three policies, participants in the opt-out default condition endorsed the policy more often than participants in the opt-in or forced-choice condition. This pattern of results supports the endowment effect (i.e., an extension of loss aversion) as an explanation of default effects, but an explicit measure of loss aversion did not. Perceptions of policymaker endorsement did not differ across default conditions and political affiliation did not predict voting behavior.</p>"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Default Effects in the Endorsement of Environmental Policies"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Philip Langlais","Poornima Madhavan","J. Christopher Brill"],"dc:creator":["Bent, Blake J."],"dc:date.available":["2019-04-02T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["<p>When making decisions, people are often presented with a default option. Across many different domains, individuals show an inflated preference for the default option, a phenomenon known as the default effect. The current research examined the default effect and the role of loss aversion and implied endorsement in the context of environmental policy. Two hundred nineteen undergraduate participants were asked to vote on an ostensible ballot question regarding the enactment of seven environmental policies. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions based on a manipulation of the default option: a default to enact the policy (the opt-out condition), a default to not enact the policy (the opt-in condition), and a forced-choice control condition. The current study found default effects to be present for three of the seven policies. Of these three policies, participants in the opt-out default condition endorsed the policy more often than participants in the opt-in or forced-choice condition. This pattern of results supports the endowment effect (i.e., an extension of loss aversion) as an explanation of default effects, but an explicit measure of loss aversion did not. Perceptions of policymaker endorsement did not differ across default conditions and political affiliation did not predict voting behavior.</p>"],"dc:identifier":["9781303994128","https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/118"],"dc:rights":["<p>In Copyright. URI: <a href=\"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/\">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).</p>"],"dc:subject":["Decision making","Default effect","Environment","Policy","Experimental Analysis of Behavior"],"dc:title":["Default Effects in the Endorsement of Environmental Policies"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science (MS)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:34:25Z"}