Skip to main content

Status-quo and omission biases

Abstract

Bias toward the status quo, found in choice and in emotional reactions to adverse outcomes, has been confounded with bias toward omission. We unconfounded these effects with scenarios in which change occurs unless action is taken. Subjects reacted more strongly to adverse outcomes caused by action, whether the status quo was maintained or not, and subjects preferred inaction over action even when inaction was associated with change. No status-quo bias was found in a matching task, which did not require action. The observed status-quo bias is at least partly caused by a bias toward omissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • BaronJonathan. (1988). Thinking and Deciding. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BennettJonathan. (1966). “Whatever the Consequences”, Analysis 26, 83–102. Reprinted in B.Steinbock (ed.), Killing and Letting Die, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 109–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • BennettJonathan. (1981). “Morality and Consequences”. In S. M.McMurrin (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, vol. 2. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 45–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • KahnemanDaniel and CarolVarey. (1991). “Notes on the psychology of utility”. In JonElster and John E.Roemer (eds.), Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • KahnemanDaniel and Dale T.Miller. (1986). “Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to its Alternatives”, Psychological Review 93, 136–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • KahnemanDaniel and AmosTversky. (1982). “The Psychology of Preferences”, Scientific American 246, 160–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • KahnemanDaniel and AmosTversky. (1984). “Choices, Values, and Frames”, American Psychologist 39, 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • KahnemanDaniel, Jack L.Knetsch, and Richard H.Thaler. (1990). “Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem”. Journal of Political Economy98, 1325–1348.

    Google Scholar 

  • LandmanJanet. (1987). “Regret and Elation following Action and Inaction: Affective Responses to Positive versus Negative Outcomes”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13, 524–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • RitovIlana and JonathanBaron. (1990). “Reluctance to Vaccinate: Commission Bias and Ambiguity”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 3, 263–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, Ilana, Joel Hodes, and Jonathan Baron. (1989). “Biases in Decisions about Compensation for Misfortune,” manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.

  • SamuelsonWilliam and RichardZeckhauser. (1988). “Status-Quo Bias in Decision Making”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 7–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • SprancaMark, ElisaMinsk, and JonathanBaron. (1991). “Omission and Commission in Judgment and Choice”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27, 76–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • ThalerRichard. (1980). “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • TverskyAmos, ShmuelSattath, and PaulSlovic. (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice”, Psychological Review 95, 371–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • ViscusiW. Kip, WesleyA. Magat, and JoelHuber. (1987). “An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuation of Multiple Health Risks”, Rand Journal of Economics 18, 465–479.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-8809299). We thank the reviewer for helpful comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ritov, I., Baron, J. Status-quo and omission biases. J Risk Uncertainty 5, 49–61 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208786

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208786

Key words

  • status quo
  • omission
  • decision making