IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v117y2015icp369-379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Susceptibility to default training options across the population

Author

Listed:
  • Borghans, Lex
  • Golsteyn, Bart H.H.

Abstract

This paper analyzes the tendency of people to choose default options when offered courses to acquire job related skills. We ask a random sample of Dutch people aged 6–80 which three skills are most important in their (future or past) jobs. Further on in the survey, we randomly select one of the skills the respondent indicated and (hypothetically) offer the respondent a course regarding this skill. The respondent can accept this offer, but can also exchange it for a course regarding one of the two other skills indicated. Our findings indicate that people generally have a strong tendency to choose the default option. This effect is similar across gender and education level. It appears that the effect of the default option is less strong around age 30 and declines after age 60.

Suggested Citation

  • Borghans, Lex & Golsteyn, Bart H.H., 2015. "Susceptibility to default training options across the population," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 369-379.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:117:y:2015:i:c:p:369-379
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.06.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268115001766
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.06.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abadie, Alberto & Gay, Sebastien, 2006. "The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 599-620, July.
    2. Altmann, Steffen & Falk, Armin & Grunewald, Andreas, 2013. "Incentives and Information as Driving Forces of Default Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 7610, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Gabriel D. Carroll & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2009. "Optimal Defaults and Active Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1639-1674.
    4. Lex Borghans & Bart Golsteyn, 2014. "Default options and training participation," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1417-1428, June.
    5. Johnson, Eric J & Hershey, John & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-51, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bruns, Hendrik & Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Elena & Klement, Katharina & Luistro Jonsson, Marijane & Rahali, Bilel, 2018. "Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 41-59.
    2. Bruns, Hendrik & Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Elena & Klement, Katharina & Luistro Jonsson, Marijane & Rahali, Bilel, 2016. "Can Nudges Be Transparent and Yet Effective?," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 33, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Egebark, Johan & Ekström, Mathias, 2016. "Can indifference make the world greener?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-13.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    3. Steffen Altmann & Armin Falk & Paul Heidhues & Rajshri Jayaraman & Marrit Teirlinck, 2019. "Defaults and Donations: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(5), pages 808-826, December.
    4. Lex Borghans & Bart Golsteyn, 2014. "Default options and training participation," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1417-1428, June.
    5. Manja Gärtner & Anna Sandberg, 2017. "Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Gabriel D. Carroll & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2009. "Optimal Defaults and Active Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1639-1674.
    7. Meredith Fowlie & Catherine Wolfram & C. Anna Spurlock & Annika Todd & Patrick Baylis & Peter Cappers, 2017. "Default Effects and Follow-On Behavior: Evidence from an Electricity Pricing Program," NBER Working Papers 23553, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2008. "How are preferences revealed?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1787-1794, August.
    9. Takanori Ida & Wenjie Wang, 2014. "A Field Experiment on Dynamic Electricity Pricing in Los Alamos:Opt-in Versus Opt-out," Discussion papers e-14-010, Graduate School of Economics Project Center, Kyoto University.
    10. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2009. "The Importance of Default Options for Retirement Saving Outcomes: Evidence from the United States," NBER Chapters, in: Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment, pages 167-195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Gärtner, Manja & Sandberg, Anna, 2014. "Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior?," SSE Working Paper Series in Economics 2014:1, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 03 Dec 2015.
    12. Altmann, Steffen & Falk, Armin & Grunewald, Andreas, 2013. "Incentives and Information as Driving Forces of Default Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 7610, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Vincent Somville & Lore Vandewalle, 2018. "Saving by Default: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 39-66, July.
    14. Montizaan, R.M. & Cörvers, F. & de Grip, A., 2007. "Training and early retirement," ROA Research Memorandum 003, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    15. Dolan, P. & Hallsworth, M. & Halpern, D. & King, D. & Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I., 2012. "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 264-277.
    16. Wang, Wenjie & Ida, Takanori & Shimada, Hideki, 2020. "Default effect versus active decision: Evidence from a field experiment in Los Alamos," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    17. Löfgren, Åsa & Martinsson, Peter & Hennlock, Magnus & Sterner, Thomas, 2012. "Are experienced people affected by a pre-set default option—Results from a field experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 66-72.
    18. Brown, Jeffrey R. & Farrell, Anne M. & Weisbenner, Scott J., 2016. "Decision-making approaches and the propensity to default: Evidence and implications," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 477-495.
    19. van Rooij, Maarten & Teppa, Federica, 2014. "Personal traits and individual choices: Taking action in economic and non-economic decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 33-43.
    20. Miriam Krieger & Stefan Felder, 2013. "Can Decision Biases Improve Insurance Outcomes? An Experiment on Status Quo Bias in Health Insurance Choice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Default option; Human capital; Training; Experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J31 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:117:y:2015:i:c:p:369-379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.