In the studies we have, the effect is modest, reliable and almost entirely ignored by the people it describes. Understanding people turns out to be a more urgent task than changing them, and a great deal harder. Institutions know all this, of course, which is why the rounding error is so rarely left to chance. What looks like risk from the outside is usually something simpler from the inside: tiredness, a deadline, a wish not to look foolish.
A better question
In the studies we have, the effect is modest, reliable and almost entirely ignored by the people it describes. The remedy is rarely exhortation. It is a change to the situation so that the easier choice is also the better one. A better account of risk would begin with the ordinary case rather than the laboratory one. Notice how rarely anyone is argued out of the rounding error, and how often they are simply moved past it by a change in circumstance.
