EXPRESS: Beyond Opt-Out: How Presumed-Consent Language Shapes Persuasion

Abstract

When using opt-out (vs. opt-in) policies, choice architects presume that people consent, rather than explicitly asking them to state their consent. While opt-out policies often increase compliance, they are also associated with managerial issues such as ethical considerations, legal regulations, limited public support, and increased no-show rates. This research demonstrates that choice architects can also establish presumed-consent through the language they use, holding the opt-in policy constant. Seven studies in various health domains indicate that presumed-consent language (e.g., “a vaccine was arranged for you”) rather than explicit-consent language (e.g., “you can choose to get a vaccine”) increases persuasion (i.e., behavioral intentions, actual behaviors). This effect occurs through perceived endorsement: Decision makers infer through the presumed-consent language that the desired health behavior (e.g., vaccination) is the recommended course of action. Furthermore, this research examines the proposed endorsement process under various conditions. When product tangibility is low (e.g., a flu shot), the effectiveness of presumed-consent language stems primarily from perceived endorsement rather than psychological ownership or perceived ease. In contrast, when product tangibility is high (e.g., a sunscreen lotion), the effect stems primarily from psychological ownership rather than perceived endorsement or perceived ease.