We report results of two laboratory experiments and a representative survey that investigate how default effects are shaped by information asymmetries and strategic incentives. We document that defaults are more informative when the interests of default setters and decision makers are more closely aligned. Decision makers' propensity to accept defaults depends, both, on the alignment of interests and the quality of their information. In a second experiment, we demonstrate that decision makers are more likely to follow defaults than to accept (equally informative) advice. Complementary evidence from a representative survey underlines that consumers commonly perceive defaults as being set strategically.

We study the effects of defaults on charitable giving in a large-scale field experiment on an online fundraising platform. We exogenously vary default options along two choice dimensions: the charitable donation decision and the “co-donation” decision regarding how much to contribute to supporting the platform. We document a strong effect of defaults on individual behavior but nevertheless find that aggregate donation levels are unaffected by defaults. In contrast, co-donations increase in the default amount. We complement our experimental results with a structural model that investigates whether personalizing defaults based on individuals' donation histories can increase donation revenues.