confirmed this pattern: Perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s belief of the donor’s underlying preference to donate were higher in the default opt-in system compared to the default opt-out system [Study = 6.43, < .001, d = 0.90]; 3: t(396) p and the mandatory donor system [Study , = 8.18, < .001, d = 1.18]. The 3: t(396) p mandated choice system has higher perceived likelihood estimates compared with the default opt-out system [Study = 4.75, < .001, d = 0.66] and the mandatory 3: t(396) p donor system[Study = 6.50, < .001, d = 0.93]. There was no significant 3: t(396) p difference for perceived likelihood estimates between the default opt-in system and mandated choice system [Study = 1.69, = .092, d = 0.24]; and between the 3: t(396) p default opt-out system and mandatory donor system [Study :t(396) = 1.71, = .088, 3 p d= 0.24]. Perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s decision to consent The findings broadly supported our second hypothesis such that perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s decision to consent to donate their family member’s organs reflected sensitivity to the four different organ donation legislative systems (Figure 5). Overall, the evidence revealed that the organ donation legislative system had a significant effect on participants’ perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s decision to consent to donate [Study 492) = 21.78, < .001, = 1: F(3, p η2 .12; 400) = 22.12, < .001, = .14; 399) = 5.88, = Study 2: F(3, p Study 3: F(3, p η2 .001, = .08]. η2 INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE. In Study 1, the perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s decision to consent to donate their family member’s organs decreased in the following order: Mandated choice = Default opt-in > Default opt-out > Mandatory donor. This is
confirmed this pattern: Perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s belief of the donor’s underlying preference to donate were higher in the default opt-in system compared to the default opt-out system [Study 3: t(396) = 6.43, p < .001, d = 0.90]; and the mandatory donor system [Study 3: , t(396) = 8.18, p < .001, d = 1.18]. The mandated choice system has higher perceived likelihood estimates compared with the default opt-out system [Study 3: t(396) = 4.75, p < .001, d = 0.66] and the mandatory donor system[Study 3: t(396) = 6.50, p < .001, d = 0.93]. There was no significant difference for perceived likelihood estimates between the default opt-in system and mandated choice system [Study 3: t(396) = 1.69, p = .092, d = 0.24]; and between the default opt-out system and mandatory donor system [Study 3 :t(396) = 1.71, p = .088, d= 0.24]. Perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s decision to consent The findings broadly supported our second hypothesis such that perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s decision to consent to donate their family member’s organs reflected sensitivity to the four different organ donation legislative systems (Figure 5). Overall, the evidence revealed that the organ donation legislative system had a significant effect on participants’ perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s decision to consent to donate [Study 1: F(3, 492) = 21.78, p < .001, η2 = .12; Study 2: F(3, 400) = 22.12, p < .001, η2 = .14; Study 3: F(3, 399) = 5.88, p = .001, η2 = .08]. INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE. In Study 1, the perceived likelihood estimates of the relative’s decision to consent to donate their family member’s organs decreased in the following order: Mandated choice = Default opt-in > Default opt-out > Mandatory donor. This is