A key finding within nudging research is the default effect, where individuals are inclined to stay with a default option when faced with a decision, rather than exploring alternatives (e.g., a preselected job opportunity among two alternatives). Similarly, the study of framing effects delves into how the presentation and context of decisions influence choices (e.g., choosing vs. rejecting a job opportunity among two alternatives). Specifically, previous literature examining choosing versus rejecting decision frames in various situations has found that these frames do not invariably complement each other; therefore, individuals' preferences vary based on the task frame. Yet, simultaneous testing of multiple nudges remains relatively unexplored in the literature. In the current study involving 1,072 participants, we examined how framing and default effects can influence decision-making in hypothetical scenarios. The decision scenarios involved two different domains-work and health. We found that framing had a strong effect on decision-making in both work and health domains, whereas default setting contributed only to a limited extent in the work domain and no effect was found in the health domain, mirroring related recent research findings. We argue for a more careful design of nudge interventions when multiple overlapping nudges are used and for a contextual approach to applying behavioral science to citizens.