1.

0 Introduction
The status quo bias is a cognitive bias that leads people to prefer that things remain the same, or
that they change as little as possible, if they absolutely must be altered. This cognitive bias plays
a role in a number of fields, including economics, political science, sociology, and psychology,
and many studies have been conducted on it to look at ways in which it influences human
behavior. By being aware of the role that the status quo bias plays in their own lives, people can
take steps to reduce the influence of this bias on their decision making.
Several other cognitive biases play into this bias, including the concept of loss aversion. Most
people prioritize avoiding the potential for loss over pursuing the potential for gain. In other
words, as a general rule, people are conservative because they do not want to lose the gains they
have made. As a result, they may view attempts to get ahead as potentially risky. In several
studies, when presented with basically identical situations, subjects tend to choose the decision
that is least likely to cause a loss.
This bias obviously plays a very important role in decision making, because people will usually
make the choice that is least likely to cause a change. The status quo bias can also play a role in
daily routines; many people eat the same thing for breakfast day after day, for example, or walk
to work in exactly the same pattern, without variation. The inability to be flexible can cause
people to become stressed or upset when a situation forces them to make a choice, and it may
close their eyes to potential opportunities.
While this bias can provide a certain amount of self-protection by encouraging people to make
safer choices, it can also become crippling, by preventing someone from selecting a more
adventurous option. Like other cognitive biases, it can be so subtle that people aren't aware of it,
making it hard to break out of set patterns.

1 | Page

2.0 Status Quo Bias

2.1 Easy Definition of Status Quo Bias: Don't think carrying on as normal is a safer or better
option than introducing some change. That might be Status Quo Bias.
2.2 Geeky Definition of Status Quo Bias: Status Quo Bias is the tendency to favor decisions
that maintain the status quo (i.e., the existing state of affairs). Those affected by this bias choose
not to divert from established behaviors unless there is compelling incentive to change.
Example: Everyone knows there are cheaper gas, electricity, telephone, TV, internet, and
insurance packages out there, but they won't bother switching to them. Why? Well, for a whole
range of "good" reasons. Perhaps they can't be bothered. Perhaps they don't want to be tied into a
contract. Perhaps they'll have to change their email, which will affect their contacts and internet
logins. Perhaps the service won't be as good, e.g., perhaps the gas or electricity supply won't be
as reliable. Perhaps something will go wrong in the switchover. These shouldn't be big enough
concerns not to make some savings on our monthly bills, but that's exactly what they are when
magnified by Status Quo Bias.
2.3 Breaking down the Status Quo Bias: Status Quo Bias "tells" one to keep the current state
of affairs for two reasons:

One won't have to make a decision.

One can be sure there won't be any consequences of a bad decision.

By sticking with the current state of affairs, one is in fact making a decision. But, because it's a
default of deciding nothing, we don't feel as though we are. As for avoiding the consequences of
a bad decision, that could be a fair point. However, one might also be losing out on some
benefits. Doing nothing might be a good option, but it's not always the safest or best course of
action. Status Quo Bias is linked to the Endowment Effect and Negativity Bias, which make you
place more weight on negative impacts than benefits. Those suffering from Status Quo Bias often
cannot see the benefits because they are too fearful of the negative impacts.
There is another factor at play too. Humans are inherently programmed to automate processes
2 | Page

(e.g.,, their work routines), and when change is pending, our brains naturally resist it to ensure
the automated process is not affected.

3.0 Decision Making: Why is it important?

Errors are costly: We believe the importance of this question is somewhat self-evident: decisions
shape important outcomes for individuals, families, businesses, governments, and societies, and
if we knew more about how to improve those outcomes, individuals, families, businesses,
governments, and societies would benefit. After all, errors induced by biases in judgment lead
decision makers to under save for retirement, engage in needless conflict, marry the wrong
partners, accept the wrong jobs, and wrongly invade countries. Given the massive costs that can
result from suboptimal decision making, it is critical for our field to focus increased effort on
improving our knowledge about strategies that can lead to better decisions.
Errors will get even costlier: The costs of suboptimal decision making have grown, even since
the first wave of research on decision biases began fifty years ago. As more economies have
shifted from a dependence on agriculture to a dependence on industry, the importance of optimal
decision making has increased. In a knowledge-based economy, we propose that a knowledge
workers primary deliverable is a good decision. In addition, more and more people are being
tasked with making decisions that are likely to be biased because of the presence of too much
information, time pressure, simultaneous choice, or some other constraints. Finally, as the
economy becomes increasingly global, each biased decision is likely to have implications for a
broader swath of society.
Decision makers are receptive: Because decision making research is relevant to businesspeople,
physicians, politicians, lawyers, private citizens, and many other groups for whom failures to
make optimal choices can be extremely costly, limitations uncovered by researchers in our field
are widely publicized and highlighted to students in many different professional and
undergraduate degree programs. Those who are exposed to our research are eager to learn the
practical implications of the knowledge we have accumulated about biased decision making so
they can improve their own outcomes. However, our field primarily offers description about the
biases that afflict decision makers without insights into how errors can be eliminated or at least
reduced.
3 | Page

Academic insights await: Bolstering our efforts to uncover techniques for improving decision
making is likely to deliver additional benefits to researchers interested in the mental processes
that underlie biased judgment. Through rigorous testing of what does and what does not improve
decision making, researchers are sure to develop a better understanding of the mechanisms
underlying decision making errors. This will deepen our already rich descriptive understanding
of decision making.
3.1 The influence of emotions on de-fault decisions: Emotions have been shown to exert an
important influence on decision making in general and on decisions involving a default
specifically. Yen and Chuang (2008) showed that the probability with which people choose an
option that upheld the status quo increased with positive affect and decreased with negative
affect. The same held true for the option of choosing neither of two offered options (e.g., two
apartments). In a similar vein, Garg and colleagues (2005) showed that, in decisions with
emotionally difficult trade-offs, angry participants showed a stronger preference for the status
quo than sad participants. Here, we aim to extend their re-search by testing how positive and
negative affect influence how frequently a default is accepted if the default introduces a change
and thus pits the preference for the status quo against the preference for inaction.
Two prominent theories, directly related to the present research, provide an explanation of how
emotions influence decision-making: the affect-as-information theory and the moodmaintenance theory. These theories yield predictions on how affect will interact with the two
types of defaults.
3.1.1 Affect-as-information theory:
The affect-as-information theory predicts how emotions and moods influence information
processing. Specifically, it suggests that people use their current affective condition to evaluate
the state of the world and if their cur-rent mode of thinking is appropriate. For example, negative
affect may signal that the situation is problematic and therefore the current dominant response
should be abandoned in favor of a more careful and systematic processing of the available
information. In support of this theory, people in a negative mood have been found to rely less on
strategies that are often triggered automatically such as scripts and stereotypes and to process
4 | Page

substantive information more carefully. In this vein, Garg and colleagues (2005) suggested that
individuals in a sad mood tend to consider options more closely and show relatively little bias
towards the status quo.
According to the affect-as-information theory, positive affect may signal that the situation is
benign, which permits to follow the currently dominant course of action. In line with this, past
research has found that positive mood induces a less effortful and more superficial processing of
information. Furthermore, positive emotions have been shown to increase reliance on global
knowledge structures such as scripts, stereotypes, and judgmental heuristics and decrease the
depth with which people process substantive information in persuasion and attitude formation.
In some situations, the default option may induce a strong emotional reaction that could serve as
a dominant response. However, research suggests that relying on the default is usually the
dominant course of action, and thus may serve as a global knowledge structure or script people
can follow. In contrast, deciding against a default is generally perceived as a decision against the
dominant response and has been characterized as requiring more systematic processing of
information and more effort. Thus, to the degree that going with the default is the dominant
response in the task, according to the affect-as-information theory, positive affect should increase
reliance on defaults, independent of whether the default is maintaining the status quo or
introducing a change.
3.1.2 Mood-maintenance theory: In contrast, the mood-maintenance theory emphasizes the
importance of emotion regulation and its influence on decision-making. Specifically, it posits
that people are motivated to experience positive affect. Accordingly, people in a positive mood
may strive to maintain this affective state by choosing options that promise positive
consequences and by avoiding losses and high-risk options. People in a negative mood may be
motivated to repair their mood, for example by choosing options that they believe will improve
their mood, such as hedonic goods. This suggests that people in a positive mood may prefer
options that maintain the status quo, because they are seen as less threatening and thus allow
maintaining positive affect. In contrast, people in a negative mood may prefer a new option to
the status quo because it has the potential to uplift their emotional state. For instance, Lin and
Lin found that when choosing between hedonic goods such as food items, people show more
variety-seeking behavior during a negative than a positive mood. This also resonates with the
5 | Page

finding by Yen & Chuang that people in a negative mood are less willing to choose a status quo
option, whereas people in a positive mood are more likely to choose a status quo option.
Correspondingly, the mood-maintenance theory predicts that people in a positive mood should
rely more on a default if it leads to upholding the current state of the world, but rely less on a
default when it involves change. In contrast, in a negative mood people should rely more on a
default that involves change and less on a default that leads to maintaining the status quo.

4.0 Routes to Status Quo Maintenance

Supporting the status quo can be rational. There are costs to change, and existing states often
have the advantage of history, of being well-understood, of having popular support. Still, there
are a variety of non-rational, psychological processes that enhance the force of status quo
maintenance, and this preference in many cases is rightfully labeled a bias.
4.1 Rational Routes to Status Quo Maintenance: There are several good reasons to provide
ongoing support for existing states. Once a choice has been made, and there is no change in
preference or choice set, there should be no shift from the status quo (indeed, it would be
irrational, or at least random, to do so). Transaction costs may also prohibit change. Institutions,
rules, customs, and habits may not be for the best, but changing them would be too costly in
terms of time, money, and or effort. And often the status quo is genuinely superior to other
alternatives.
Cognitive limitations:
Choice is often difficult, and decision makers may prefer to do nothing and or to maintain their
current course of action because it is easier. In this case, the cognitive costs of decision-making
may outweigh the benefit of a superior choice. As evidence, decision-makers are more likely to
postpone making a decision as alternatives are added, and preference for the status quo increases
as a function of the number of options. Status quo alternatives often require less mental effort to
maintain.
Informational limitations:
In addition to the cognitive limitations imposed by choice, there are also informational
limitations. Decision outcomes are rarely certain, nor is the utility they may bring. Because some
errors are more costly than others, sticking with what worked in the past is a safe option that
6 | Page

makes for a smart choice. As long as previous decisions are good enough,an energyconserving organism in an uncertain world has little impetus to change; in this case, satisficing
may be the rational thing to do.
4.2 Non-rational Routes to Status Quo Maintenance:
Status quo bias, loss aversion and regret avoidance:
Status quo choices are preferred over alternatives. Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) defined
this status quo bias in a way that conflated decision-makers preference to do nothing with a
preference to maintain the status quo. When these two biases are disentangled, independent
effects for both emerge, with each providing a net gain for previously selected alternatives.
Both do nothing and status quo maintenance effects are grounded in loss aversion and
regret avoidance. People give more weight to losses than to equal gains. Because the status quo
operates as a reference point from which change is considered, the costs of change carry more
weight than potential benefits, creating a relative advantage for the existing state of affairs. Loss
aversion also leads to greater regret for action than for inaction; more regret is experienced when
a decision changes the status quo than when it maintains it. Together these forces provide an
advantage for the status quo; people are motivated to do nothing or to maintain current or
previous decisions. Change is avoided, and decision makers stick with what has been done in the
past.
Mere exposure: One way to increase liking for something is repeated exposure over time.
Stimuli as diverse as words, shapes, music, faces, and doughnuts have all been shown to become
more favorable as a consequence of simple, unreinforced exposure. At the interpersonal level,
frequent, incidental contact with others often leads to attraction and friendship, contact between
social groups leads to more favorable inter-group attitudes as well.

A related finding is the truth effect: repeated exposure to statements increases their perceived
veracity. Like mere exposure, the truth effect is not specific to any one domain but instead occurs
for a broad array of topics, including people, politics, history, art, geography, religion, science,
and marketing. The repeated presentation of unfamiliar but plausible statements causes these
statements to be seen as more true.
7 | Page

There is some disagreement over the mechanisms involved in these effects (mere expo-sure
effects may be due to conditioning or processing fluency; truth effects may be due to familiarity
or source variability), but ultimately both stem from repeated exposure. The biasing
consequences in favor of the status quo are clear. Because existing states are encountered more
frequently than non-existent alternatives, they will be evaluated more favorably and perceived as
more true.
Rationalization: People are motivated to justify, defend, and support the status quo. Sometimes
existing states are the result of our own choices. People rationalize these decisions, upgrading
what was chosen and downgrading what was not. Because people wish to see the world as a just
place where people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. People are also motivated
to justify extant social systems; even members of underprivileged groups rationalize theory own
disadvantage by endorsing system-justifying beliefs.
This support for the status quo increases in response to manipulations designed to motivate its
defense. When the social system is threatened, or when inescapability of the social system
becomes apparent, justification of the social system increases. These findings provide strong
evidence that some forms of a status quo bias stem from motivation to see the existing state of
affairs as good, right, and fair.
A bias for existence: Recently we have argued for a novel process that maintains the status quo:
the existence bias. People simply assume, with little reason or deliberation, the goodness of
existing states. This idea builds on Humes (1739 1992) observation that people tend to conflate
matters of fact with prescription (what ought to be), a process often referred to as the naturalistic
fallacy. Hume was concerned with moral matters, but the tendency to conflate existence with
goodness applies to a wide variety of judgments. Independent of exposure and contact, concerns
due to change, motivation to rationalize, and even reasoned inference, people seem biased in
favor of existence. The existence bias operates as a simple rule of thumb; existence itself is
evidence of positive qualities.
In a series of studies, we have compared procedures, objects, and other stimuli that differ only in
the extent to which they represent the status quo. In one study, students considered one of two
sets of degree requirements at their university, of which one rep-resented current practice. The
8 | Page

status quo version was judged as better, more right, and the way things ought to be, as
compared to identical requirement presented as an alternative. Because the status quo was
determined randomly, previous exposure fails as an alternative explanation.
Still, people may stick with the status quo because change can have costs. And so we must
demonstrate that the existence bias is independent of these concerns by holding change
constant across options. To show that people value the status quo regardless of the costs
associated with change, we created a scenario about the future, manipulated its likelihood, and
measured how good that outcome would be.
Longer is better : A corollary of the existence bias concerns duration: if existence is good,
longer existence should be better. Time vets bad endeavors, and those that persist should be
judged more favorably for doing so. This thinking resembles quasi-evolutionary notions of
survival of the fittest, and also the augmentation principle in attribution theory. In one study,
participants were given a brief but (excepting the time manipulation) accurate description of
acupuncture, described as existing for 250, 500, 1000, or 2000 years. Evaluation of acupuncture
(whether it was a good practice and people ought to use it) was a function of time; the longer it
was said to exist, the better it was evaluated.

5.0 Existence, Longevity, and Heuristic Thinking

Existence and longevity biases do more than describe a pro-status quo effect; they provide a
process explanation for why these effects occur. We argue that these biases operate as quick and
simple rules of thumb. From experience, people understand that existence and longevity may
indicate some amount of vetting that signals ability, worth, or goodness. People seem to apply
9 | Page

this assumption as a simple decision rule; if it exists and maintains, it is good. In other words,
these biases are heuristics, for which evidence comes in three forms.
One hallmark of heuristic thinking is over-application; although they often work, rules of thumb
are sometimes generalized to contexts where they do not apply. Several studies show that
existence and longevity biases occur on dimensions independent of time in existence. In one
study, participants were asked to study a painting said to be 5 or 100 years old. In another,
participants were shown a photograph of a tree along with a description that varied only in the
trees alleged age (5004500 years). In both cases, aesthetic judgments (e.g., how pleasant the
tree was to look at) increased as a function of longevity. A similar case can be made for
participants aesthetic judgments of the galaxy that varied as a function of time in existence. In
each case, participants over-generalized assumptions that longer-is-better to what was visually
appealing.
Two additional markers of heuristic thinking are efficiency and lack of awareness of the process.
Existence and longevity biases share these properties as well. For example, when mental
resources are consumed with a second task, preference for status quo options continues unabated
Participants also seem unaware of the role longevity plays in their judgment. In one study,
participants gustatory evaluations were affected by time in existence; a piece of chocolate
thought to be on the market longer tasted better When asked to indicate reasons for their
preference, all participants failed to recognize time in existence as a source of their judgment;
they seemed to lack access to what in fact affected their taste for a consumer good. Instead, they
simply applied the heuristic, and had a better taste experience as a result.

6.0 Findings
Other status quo maintenance processes are equally subtle. Initial research on status quo bias
invited participants to consider the possibility that position as the status quo affected their
choices; this possibility was denied. The attitudinal effects of mere exposure are found when
stimuli are presented subliminally; indeed these effects are strongest when exposure occurs
outside of awareness. Rationalization of existing states seems to be similarly opaque;
10 | P a g e

anterograde amnesiacs justify their decisions even though they cannot recall the choices they
have made, and members of low-status groups favor dominant groups when this preference is
measured implicitly. Across all of these studies, establishment carried two advantages; it was
favored, and participants did not seem to know it.
Repeated exposure without incident indicates a stimulus is safe, and exposure over time renders
stimuli easier to understand and process. These are excellent reasons for a preference.
But there is compelling evidence that in many cases status quo preference is rightfully labeled a
bias. People continue to repeat old choices despite the fact new decision-makers privy to the
same information choose differently. Similarly, the status quo prevails even when there are no
costs for change or uncertainty about non-status quo options. Status quo preference due to loss
aversion violates the rational principles of consistency and coherence. Finally, theres no
accounting for taste; aesthetic and gustatory evaluations are affected by existence and longevity
although neither is likely to be mediated by reason.
In the absence of a status quo alternative, decision makers generate a summary value for all
alternatives, but when a status quo option does exist, people compare the status quo and its
alternatives on an attribute-by-attribute basis, and will discard the status quo only when an
alternative surpasses it on most or all of the attributes. This technical argument indicates that
status quo preference can be rational, but not when it will be so. And it fails when the bias occurs
outside a choice context, in the absence of alternatives (e.g., when the status quo is
operationalized as frequency of occurrence or time in existence). Rational choice does not
explain why stars and trees are perceived as prettier when they embody the status quo.

7.0 Recommendation
People do, at times, seek novelty. New cars, updated bathrooms, and the latest smart phone all
speak to peoples desire for change. Telling is the finding that the pursuit of novelty often occurs
in the context of what is familiar, established, and comforting. New product ventures earn higher
market shares when linked to established firms, minority opinions are most persuasive and
influential when consistently repeated, and childrens preference for novel foods increases when
11 | P a g e

accompanied by familiar flavors. In other words, change is pursued, but in the context of a
secure base. New living spaces and products people seek are typically updated rather than
entirely new. Noveltys strongest commodity can be its foundation in the wisdom of the past.
When considering alternatives, decision-makers seem more concerned about avoiding false
positives than false negatives. Little is lost when sticking with an outcome that has worked well
enough in the past (sufficiency), even though this strategy may result in missed opportunities for
something better. Another way to promote change-seeking may be to shift focus from sufficiency
to necessity by orienting decision makers away from potential losses and toward potential gains.
Under these conditions, people appear to resolve tradeoffs between stability and change by
pursuing the latter.

8.0 Conclusion
People favor the existing and longstanding states of the world. Rational explanations for status
quo maintenance are complemented by a number of non-rational mechanisms; loss aversion,
regret avoidance, repeated exposure, and rationalization create a preference for existing states.
We show that the status quo also benefits from a simple assumption of goodness due to mere
existence and longevity; people treat existence as a prima facie case for goodness, aesthetic and
12 | P a g e

ethical Longevity increases this preference. These biases operate heuristically, forming barriers
to cognitive and social change.
Change from the status quo faces hurdles on all these fronts. Many of the biases supporting the
status quo are invisible, and overcoming them requires awareness and also substantial effort.

References
Anderson, C. A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining behavioral scripts
on personal intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 293305.
Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result
from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139167.

13 | P a g e

Bacon, F. T. (1979). Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 241252.
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1994). Reference points and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 59, 475498.
Birch, L. L. (1999). Development of food preferences. Annual Review of Nutrition, 19, 4162.
Bobbio, N. (1996). Left and Right. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968
1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265289.
Bornstein, R. F., & DAgostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545552.

14 | P a g e