Status quo bias in decision making

William Samuelson; Richard Zeckhauser

doi:10.1007/BF00055564

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

March 1988, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 7–59

Status quo bias in decision making

Authors
Authors and affiliations

William Samuelson
Richard Zeckhauser

Article

DOI: 10.1007/BF00055564

Cite this article as:: Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. J Risk Uncertainty (1988) 1: 7. doi:10.1007/BF00055564

Abstract

Most real decisions, unlike those of economics texts, have a status quo alternative—that is, doing nothing or maintaining one's current or previous decision. A series of decision-making experiments shows that individuals disproportionately stick with the status quo. Data on the selections of health plans and retirement programs by faculty members reveal that the status quo bias is substantial in important real decisions. Economics, psychology, and decision theory provide possible explanations for this bias. Applications are discussed ranging from marketing techniques, to industrial organization, to the advance of science.

Key words

decision making experimental economics status quo bias choice model behavioral economics rationality

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Akerlof, G. A., and Dickens, W. T. “The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance”,American Economic Review 72 (1982), 307–319.Google Scholar
Bell, D. E. “Regret in Decision Making Under Uncertainty”,Operations Research 30 (1982), 961–981.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. “Self-Perception Theory”. In: L. Berkowitz, ed.,Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Ben-Horin, D. “Dying to Work: Occupational Cynicism Plagues Chemical Workers”,In These Times 3 (June 27/July 3, 1979), 24.Google Scholar
Brehm, J. “Postdecision Changes in the Desirability of Alternatives”,Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 52 (1956), 384–389.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., and Rubin J. Z.Entrapment in Escalating Conflict. Springer-Verlag, 1982.Google Scholar
David, P. “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY”,American Economic Review 75 (1985), 332–337.Google Scholar
Degroot, M.Optimal Statistical Decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.Google Scholar
Doane, M. J., Hartman, R. S., and Woo, C. “Household Preference for Interruptible Rate Options and the Revealed Value of Service Reliability”, mimeo, Boston University, 1987.Google Scholar
Festinger, L., and Carlsmith, J. M. “Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance”,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 (1959), 203–210.Google Scholar
Gilbert, J. P., Light, R. J., and Mosteller, F. “Assessing Social Innovations: An Empirical Base for Policy”. In: W. Fairley and F. Mosteller, eds.,Statistics and Public Policy, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1977.Google Scholar
Jeuland, A. P. “Brand Choice Inertia as One Aspect of the Notion of Brand Loyalty”,Management Science 25 (1979), 671–82.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., and Thaler, R. “Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market”,American Economic Review 76 (1986), 728–741.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A.Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk”,Econometrica 47 (1979), 263–281.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. “The Psychology of Preference”,Scientific American 246 (1982), 160–173.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. “Choices, Values and Frames”,American Psychologist 39 (1984), 341–350.Google Scholar
Knetsch, J., Thaler, R., and Kahneman, D. “Reluctance to Trade: An Experimental Refutation of the Coase Theorem”, mimeo, 1987.Google Scholar
Knox, R. E., and Inkster, J. A., “Post Decision Dissonance at Post Time”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8 (1968), 319–323.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. P.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Langer, E.The Psychology of Control. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1983.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. “Expectations and Intertemporal Choice”, Economics dissertation, Yale University, 1985.Google Scholar
Louis, A. M. “Schlitz's Crafty Taste Test”,Fortune (June 26, 1981), 32–34.Google Scholar
Mulanaphy, J. “Participants' Allocation Change and CREF Transfer Practices”, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, 1986.Google Scholar
Neipp, J., and Zeckhauser, R. “Persistence in the Choice of Health Plans”. In R. Scheffler and L. Rossiter, eds.,Biased Selection in Health Care Markets. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Nelson, R., and Winter, S.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
O'Hare, M., Bacow, L., and Sanderson, D.Facility Siting and Public Opposition, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983.Google Scholar
Pratt, J., Wise, D., and Zeckhauser, R. “Price Differences in Almost Competitive Markets”,Quarterly Journal of Economics 53 (1979), 189–211.Google Scholar
Quattrone, G. A., and Tversky, A. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice”, mimeo, Stanford University, 1987.Google Scholar
Rowe, R. D., d'Arge, R. C., and Brookshire, D. S. “An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility”,Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7 (1980), 1–19.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J.The Foundations of Statistics, New York: Wiley, 1954.Google Scholar
“Saying No to New Coke”,Newsweek (June 24, 1985), 32–33.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C.The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Schmalensee, R. “Product Differentiation Advantages of Pioneering Brands”,American Economic Review 72 (1982), 349–365.Google Scholar
Schoenberger, W.Decision Destiny, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Schotter, A., and Braunstein, Y. “Economic Search: An Experimental Study”,Economic Inquiry 19 (1981), 1–25.Google Scholar
Simon, H.Models of Man. New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
Stimson, H. S. “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb”,Harper's 197 (1947), 97–107.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice”,Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1 (1980), 39–60.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”,Science 185 (1974), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Urban, G., Carter, T., Gaskin, S., and Mucha, Z. “Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical Analysis and Strategic Implications”,Management Science 32 (1986), 645–659.Google Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

William Samuelson
- 1
Richard Zeckhauser
- 2

1.Boston UniversityBoston
2.Harvard UniversityHarvard

Personalised recommendations

Actions

Unlimited access to the full article
Instant download
Include local sales tax if applicable

Subscribe to Journal

Get Access to

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

for the whole of 2017

Status quo bias in decision making

Abstract

Key words

Preview

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cookies