We investigated the limits of default nudges in the context of setting indoor temperatures. In Experiment 1, participants chose a hypothetical thermostat setting where the default varied widely (14°C to 32°C). Contrary to standard predictions, temperature choices showed no systematic relation to the default or to the control condition. Verbal reports indicated that participants relied heavily on stable internal priorities, primarily comfort and cost, and were often suspicious of the default, especially when it appeared extreme. These "trick me" attributions suggested awareness of the potential influence attempt.

Experiment 2 tested whether providing a rationale (comfort, finance, or environment-based) would increase reliance on the default. Behavioral changes were minimal but directionally aligned with the rationale, such as slightly higher settings with the "environmental" and "comfort" explanations. However, participants selectively incorporated the rationale, mostly reverting to their "comfort" and "cost-based" reasoning. Suspicion toward the default persisted, particularly when the provided explanation did not align with existing beliefs.

These findings suggest that temperature-setting behavior is highly resistant to default nudges. Defaults produce minimal movement because people anchor their choices in strong, stable personal considerations and remain sensitive to cues that signal possible manipulation. These studies provide a combined behavioral and verbal blueprint for investigating and clarifying why default nudges fail in contexts where individuals have strong prior preferences. It challenges the notion that people are passive decision-makers or lazy thinkers, showing they actively evaluate the intent behind the nudge and prioritize their own judgment.