When in doubt, do nothing?
Have you ever wished your life was more like a video game? Similar to a labyrinth game that if you hit all the right doors suddenly you will move to the next round? Something like an upgrade to a newer world that moves faster, have better qualities and more sophisticated tools?
So why we are not thirsty to risk and learn about these new possibilities, the new tools and the innovative thinking of our era, no matter the cause? What makes people stick in the old way of doing thinks? Why we are avoiding the unknown without giving it a chance? Is it fear that keeps us behind?
Explanation of Status Quo Bias
In their book Nudge, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein talk about choices.
For reasons we have discussed, many people will take whatever option requires the least effort, or the path of least resistance. Recall the discussion of inertia, status quo bias, and the ‘yeah, whatever’ heuristic. All these forces imply that if, for a given choice, there is a default option — an option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing — then we can expect a large number of people to end up with that option, whether or not it is good for them. And as we have also stressed, these behavioral tendencies toward doing nothing will be reinforced if the default option comes with some implicit or explicit suggestion that it represents the normal or even the recommended course of action.
Status Quo Bias is when we have a tendency to like and expect things to stay the same. People feel comfort with a decision taken previously and greater regret for bad outcomes resulting from new actions. For example, an individual may choose to retain their current situation because of the potential transition cost of switching to an alternative.
Intimacy. We tend to stick with the same thing because we “know” it, or “it’s mine,” when a clearly superior option is out there. We vote on the familiar instead of the unknown. Maybe a “don’t talk to strangers” syndrome?
Lose versus Benefit. Kahneman and Tversky (1979) explain, “Losses loom larger than gains.” In other words, if you lose $100 and a month later you win $100 you will experience more psychological harm of the lose than from the gain. Research from Kahneman and Tversky suggests that “losses are twice as psychologically harmful as gains are beneficial.”
Impact
Even though the idea of the strong bias sounds very manageable why we stick to a pleasant present and how this affects our everyday life?
The impact of the status quo bias in our lives is significant and we experience it with various ways and in different environments. You wake up in the morning heading to your favorite coffee shop because you know these guys, even though the coffee quality is bad. But you know them and that’s making you feel comfortable. Arriving later to the office, where you suffer and you really need a change, but this step out seems impossible, so you decide to remain on the same desk dealing with the same old routine, because you know that this routine will cover your monthly expenses, anyhow. Possibly you do the same at your lunch break too, finding yourself ordering the same course although other choices seem more tempting. But you already know that you will be satisfied with your tested choice. You won’t have any loose and you won’t be unhappy making these decisions.
At the same time, you won’t know if the newly open coffee shop next to the one you choose will serve you with a better quality coffee and you won’t know how much you will earn in another job and how many possibilities of progress you are missing.
Every day decisions shape greater decision patterns on more significant life aspects such as health and safety, politics, finances etc. It is easy not to notice the tendency and even easier to do nothing against it, but try to turn the lights on, re-frame your view, explore what the unknown can give you and replace the status quo with venture go!
Explore more:
Sources:
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1992). “Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5 (4): 297–323.
