We appreciate the comments and studies by Jung et al. (1). They test for default neglect in three new default games, finding that “Choice Architects” (CAs) are better than chance at correctly predicting the default effect in these new contexts.
That said, we believe that Jung et al.’s claim that CAs are “excellent” at setting defaults (1) is premature. First, they do not present data on default-setting behavior, per se, but rather on beliefs about the default effect. This distinction is important because default-setting behavior does not always correlate with beliefs about the default effect (study 3 in ref. 2). Second, default neglect should be conceptualized as a spectrum from total …
↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: jjzlatev{at}stanford.edu.
