Although yes/no response formats have been used to increase enrollment rates in several different types of programs, their effectiveness has generally been tested in forced-choice settings. The effects on postchoice engagement have not been measured. Across two field experiments in an e-mail context in which choice is not forced, the authors demonstrate a substantial advantage in click-through rates for a yes/no response format over traditional opt-in response formats. The increase in click-through rate does, under certain conditions, also persist through downstream program enrollment and participation. Finally, though noting that the yes/no format advantage is probably multidetermined, the authors discuss several potential psychological mechanisms, which are particularly relevant in non-forced-choice settings. The authors also discuss how the yes/no response format might operate in other settings, such as the implementation of mandated choice for organ donation.
AgarwalAshish, HosanagarKartik, and SmithMichael D. (2011), “Location, Location, Location: An Analysis of Profitability of Position in Online Advertising Markets,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (December), 1057–73.
2.
AmirOn and LevavJonathan (2008), “Choice Construction Versus Preference Construction: The Instability of Preferences Learned in Context,”Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (April), 145–58.
3.
BettmanJames R., LuceMary Frances, and PayneJohn W. (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,”Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 187–217.
4.
BowmanDouglas, HeilmanCarrie M., and SeetharamanP.B. (2004), “Determinants of Product-Use Compliance Behavior,”Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (August), 324–38.
CarrollGabriel D., ChoiJames J., LaibsonDavid, MadrianBrigitte C., and MetrickAndrew (2009), “Optimal Defaults and Active Decisions,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124 (4), 1639–74.
7.
ChoiJames J., LaibsonDavid, MadrianBrigitte C., and MetrickAndrew (2002), “Defined Contribution Pensions: Plan Rules, Participant Choices, and the Path of Least Resistance,” in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 16, PoterbaJ.M., ed. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 67–114.
ChouhanP. and DraperH. (2003), “Modified Mandated Choice for Organ Procurement,”Journal of Medical Ethics, 29 (3), 157–62.
10.
CialdiniRobert B. and TrostMelanie R. (1998), “Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity and Compliance,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology, GilbertD.T., FiskeS.T. and LindzeyG., eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, 151–92.
11.
CotterHayley (2011), “Increasing Consent for Organ Donation: Mandated Choice, Individual Autonomy, and Informed Consent,”Health Matrix, 177 (1999), 599–626.
12.
CutlerDavid M. and EverettWendy (2010), “Thinking Outside the Pillbox—Medication Adherence as a Priority for Health Care Reform,”New England Journal of Medicine, 362 (17), 1553–55.
13.
DharRavi (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 215–31.
14.
HawkinsScott A., HochStephen J., and Meyers-LevyJoan (2001), “Low-Involvement Learning : Repetition and Coherence in Familiarity and Belief,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11 (1), 1–11.
15.
InmanJ. Jeffrey, PeterAnil C., and RaghubirPriya (1997), “Framing the Deal: The Role of Restrictions in Accentuating Deal Value,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 68–79.
16.
JohnsonEric J. and GoldsteinDaniel G. (2003), “Do Defaults Save Lives?”Science, 302 (5649), 1338–39.
17.
JustDavid and PriceJoseph (2014), “Default Options, Incentives and Food Choices,”Public Health Nutrition, 16 (12), 2281–88.
18.
KallgrenCarl A., RenoRaymond R., and CialdiniRobert B. (2000), “A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When Norms Do and Do Not Affect Behavior,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (8), 1002–12.
19.
KellerPunam Anand, HarlamBari, LoewensteinGeorge, and VolppKevin G. (2011), “Enhanced Active Choice: A New Method to Motivate Behavior Change,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (4), 376–83.
20.
KellerPunam Anand and LehmannDonald R. (2008), “Designing Effective Health Communications: A Meta-Analysis,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27 (Fall), 117–30.
21.
Kessler, Judd B. and Alvin E. Roth (2014), “Don't Take ‘No’ for an Answer: An Experiment with Actual Organ Donor Registrations,” NBER Working Paper No. 20378.
22.
KivetzYifat and TylerTom R. (2007), “Tomorrow I'll Be Me: The Effect of Time Perspective on the Activation of Idealistic Versus Pragmatic Selves,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (2), 193–211.
23.
KlassenAnn C. and KlassenDavid K. (1996), “Who Are the Donors in Organ Donation? The Family's Perspective in Mandated Choice,”Annals of Internal Medicine, 125 (1), 70–73.
24.
KnowlesEric S. and CondonChristopher A. (1999), “Why People Say ‘Yes’: A Dual-Process Theory of Acquiescence,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (2), 379–86.
25.
KrosnickJon A. and PresserStanley (2010), “Question and Questionnaire Design,” in Handbook of Survey Research, MarsdenP.V. and WrightJ.D., eds. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 263–314.
26.
LernerJennifer S. and TetlockPhilip E. (1999), “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability,”Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2), 255–75.
27.
LessneGreg J. and NotarantonioElaine M. (1988), “The Effect of Limits in Retail Advertisements: A Reactance Theory Perspective,”Psychology and Marketing, 5 (1), 33–44.
28.
MadrianBrigitte C. and SheaDennis F. (2001), “The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (4), 1149–87.
29.
MilkmanKatherine L., RogersTodd, and BazermanMax H. (2008), “Harnessing Our Inner Angels and Demons: What We Have Learned About Want/Should Conflicts and How That Knowledge Can Help Us Reduce Short-Sighted Decision Making,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 324–38.
30.
PaivioAllan, WalshMary, and BonsTrudy (1994), “Concreteness Effects on Memory: When and Why?”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20 (5), 1196–204.
31.
PaulhusDelroy L. (1991), “Measurement and Control of Response Bias,” in Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, RobinsonJ.P., ShaverP.R., and WrightsmanL.S., eds. San Diego: Academic Press, 17–59.
32.
RennieLaura J., HarrisPeter R., and WebbThomas L. (2014), “The Impact of Perspective in Visualizing Health-Related Behaviors: First-Person Perspective Increases Motivation to Adopt Health-Related Behaviors,”Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44 (12), 806–12.
33.
RogersTodd and BazermanMax H. (2008), “Future Lock-In: Future Implementation Increases Selection of ‘Should’ Choices,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106 (1), 1–20.
34.
RossC.E. and MirowskyJ. (1984), “Socially-Desirable Response and Acquiescence in a Cross-Cultural Survey of Mental Health,”Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25 (2), 189–97.
35.
SkurnikIan, YoonCarolyn, ParkDenise C., and SchwarzNorbert (2005), “How Warnings About False Claims Become Recommendations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 713–24.
36.
SomanDilip and GourvilleJohn T. (2001), “Transaction Decoupling: How Price Bundling Affects the Decision to Consume,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (February), 30–44.
ZhuMeng, BilleterDarron M., and Jeffrey InmanJ. (2012), “The Double-Edged Sword of Signaling Effectiveness : When Salient Cues Curb Postpurchase Consumption,”Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (February), 26–38.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
