Bias in Favor of the Status Quo

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 ethical Longevity increases this preference. These biases operate heuristically, forming barriers to cognitive and social change. The principle rule of induction is that we expect the future to be like the past. We effortlessly and unconsciously expect gravity to hold us to the ground every morning, we expect water to be wet, ice cream to be cold, that particle physics and brain surgery are difficult and cultivating dandelions is easy. The expectation of stability is critical; it is axiomatic. We expect stasis. We argue that there are a variety of fundamental judgmental, affective, and aesthetic processes that are affiliated with this expectation that guide our likes and dislikes, and especially our judgments about what is good, desirable, legitimate, and moral. One primary way that our fundamental expectation of stability expresses itself is in a handful of biases that include status quo bias, system justification, the existence bias, the naturalistic fallacy, endowment effect, and the longer-is-better phenomenon. Many of these biases are based in a similar equation about the status quo – what is, is good. Although these terms share much conceptual space, we will distinguish among them to highlight specific psychological processes. 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 (Burke, 1790 ⁄1999). 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. 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. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/3 (2012): 270–281, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00427.x a 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Cognitive limitations Choice is often difficult (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000; Schwartz, 2000), and decision makers may prefer to do nothing (Ritov & Baron, 1990) and ⁄or to maintain their current course of action (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988) 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 (Tversky & Shafir, 1992), and preference for the status quo increases as a function of the number of options (Kempf & Ruenzi, 2006; Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). Status quo alternatives often require less mental effort to maintain (Eidelman & Crandall, 2009). 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 (Friedrich, 1993; Haselton & Nettle, 2006), sticking with what worked in the past is a safe option that makes for a smart choice. As long as previous decisions are ‘‘good enough’’ (Simon, 1956), an energy-conserving organism in an uncertain world has little impetus to change; in this case, satisficing may be the rational thing to do (Schwartz, Ben-Haim, & Dacso, 2011). 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 (i.e., omission bias; Ritov & Baron, 1992; Spranca, Minsk, & Baron, 1991; with a preference to maintain the status quo. When these two biases are disentangled, independent effects for both emerge (Baron & Ritov, 1994; Schweitzer, 1994), 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 (Anderson, 2003; Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991). People give more weight to losses than to equal gains (they are ‘‘loss averse,’’ Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). 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 (Moshinsky & Bar-Hillel, 2010). Loss aversion also leads to greater regret for action than for inaction (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982); more regret is experienced when a decision changes the status quo than when it maintains it (Hesketh, 1996; Ritov & Baron, 1992; cf. Inman & Zeelenberg, 2002). Together these forces provide an advantage for the status quo; people are motivated to do nothing or to maintain current or previous decisions (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). Change is avoided, and decision makers stick with what has been done in the past.