Default Effect versus Active Decision: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Los Alamos
Default Effect versus Active Decision: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Los Alamos
复制标题
默认效应与主动决策：来自洛斯阿拉莫斯现场实验的证据
DOI：
10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103498
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
and H. Shimada (2020) “,” vol.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wang;W.;T. Ida;and H. Shimada (2020) “,” vol.
我们研究了消费者如何对预设违约和随后的经济激励的不同组合做出反应。实施了一项随机对照试验，以调查两个电价计划的需求减少性能：选择加入和选择退出关键峰值定价。对于被分配到选择加入组的顾客来说，治疗意图和治疗上的治疗都更为明显，并且选择加入的治疗效果相对于重复干预更为持久。这一结果表明，选择加入类型的积极注册本身对客户的后续行为有影响，使他们对治疗干预更敏感。此外，只有选择加入治疗在治疗时间窗之外有显著的效果。因此，我们的结果突出了主动和被动决策过程之间的重要区别。我们还估计了一个边际治疗效果模型，以告知我们实验的外部有效性。
We examine how consumers respond to distinct combinations of preset defaults and subsequent economic incentives. A randomised controlled trial is implemented to investigate the demand reduction performance of two electricity pricing programmes: opt-in and opt-out critical peak pricing. Both the intention-to-treat and the treatment-on-the-treated are more pronounced for customers assigned to the opt-in group, and the opt-in treatment effects are relatively more persistent over repeated interventions. This result suggests that the opt-in type active enrolment itself had an impact on customers’ subsequent behaviour and made them more responsive to the treatment interventions. Moreover, only the opt-in treatment has significant effects beyond the treatment time window. Our results, therefore, highlight the important difference between an active and a passive decision-making process. We also estimate a marginal treatment effect model to inform the external validity of our experiment.