Revisiting status quo bias: Replication of Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988)

Xiao, Qinyu; LAM, Choi Shan Emma; Piara, Muhrajan; Feldman, Gilad

doi:10.31234/osf.io/ta97c

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if the information indicated a high state, similar to subjects in the experiment, admitting to this and choosing the state associated with the lower payoff lottery was more difficult for many decision-makers [46]. Samuelson & Zeckhauser [47] and Charness & Levin [34] in their studies identified regret avoidance and a taste for consistency, respectively as a possible reason for this status quo behavior; theories for status quo bias that continue to be supported by research [48][49][50]. The deviation from optimal choices was a common occurrence throughout all stages of the pandemic.…”

Section: Hypothesis #2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice Under Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Empirical Inquiry of a Behavioral Economic Experiment Applied to COVID-19.

Ks¹,

Bhattacharyya²,

Rodenburg³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results from a behavioral economic laboratory experiment are used to enhance our understanding of public health decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic. The identification of systematic biases from optimal decision theory found in controlled experiments could help inform public policy design for future public health crises. The laboratory and the shelter-in-place decisions made during COVID-19 included elements of risk, uncertainty and ambiguity. The lab findings found individuals adopt different decision rules depending on both personal attributes and on the context and environment in which the decision task is conducted. Key observations to consider in the context of the COVID-19 decision environment include the importance of past experience, the ability to understand and calculate the odds of each action, the size and differences in economic payoffs given the choice, the value of information received, and how past statistical independent outcomes influence future decisions. The academic space encompassing both public health and behavioral economics is small, yet important, particularly in the current crisis. The objective of continued research in this area would be to develop a more representative model of decision-making processes, particularly during crisis, that would serve to enhance future public health policy design.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis #2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice Under Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Empirical Inquiry of a Behavioral Economic Experiment Applied to COVID-19.

Ks¹,

Bhattacharyya²,

Rodenburg³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A sub-type of congruence bias may be the traditional confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998) where new information is interpreted as supporting one's current beliefs. The terms have been used interchangeably in much of the empirical literature Xiao, Lan, Piara, & Feldman, 2020). In a diagnostic setting, congruence bias could lead to closing the exploratory phase prematurely; accepting a particular diagnosis before it has been fully verified, or neglecting plausible alternatives (Croskerry, 2002(Croskerry, , 2009aEva, 2001;Parmley, 2006).…”

Section: 12: Congruence Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchoring, confirmation and confidence bias among medical decision-makers

Tf¹,

Bondevik²,

Vt³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some heuristics and biases are assumed to be universal for human decision-making, and may thus be expected to appear consistently and need to be considered when planning for real-life decision-making. Yet results are mixed when exploring the biases in applied settings, and few studies have attempted to robustly measure the combined impact of various biases during a decision-making process. We performed three pre-registered classroom experiments in which trained medical students read case descriptions and explored follow-up information in order to reach and adjust mental health diagnoses (∑N = 224). We tested whether the order of presenting the symptoms led to a primacy effect, whether there was a congruence bias in selecting follow-up questions, and whether confidence increased during the decision process. Our results showed increased confidence for participants that did not change their decision or sought disconfirming information. There was some indication of a weak congruence bias in selecting follow-up questions. There was no indication of a stronger congruence bias when confidence was high, and there was no support for a primacy effect of the order of symptom presentation. We conclude that the biases are difficult to demonstrate in pre-registered analyses of complex decision-making processes in applied settings.

show abstract

“…A common barrier to amassing public support for such policies is the public's preference for existing systems and aversion to change. This phenomenon has been referred to as “status quo bias” ( 3 , 4 ). As an example, neoliberal beliefs about personal agency, behavior, responsibility, and accountability justify existing health and social systems because they presuppose that health disparities are the product of individual choices and not systemic inequalities; and therefore, changes to the system are not needed ( 5 , 6 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social position and economic system justification in Canada: Implications for advancing health equity and social justice from an exploratory study of factors shaping economic system justification

Card

Hepburn²

2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveMany socio-economic reforms that could reduce health disparities are not implemented because people justify existing systems and fear changes thereto. This study aimed to identify socio-demographic factors associated with system justifying beliefs to better understand how they are maintained in Canada. In doing so, we hypothesized that (1) systems justification is a default cognitive position, buttressed by the palliative benefits of system-justification, (2) lack of success in a given system generally motivates people to doubt the legitimacy of that system, and (3) system-justifying beliefs are rejected only when the costs of doing so are low enough and/or the benefits are high enough to outweigh the innate needs-fulfillment benefits of system-justification.MethodsTesting these hypotheses, we recruited participants living in Canada, aged 16+, to complete an online survey after being recruited via paid social media advertisements. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with Economic System Justification Scale (ESJS) scores. Explanatory variables included demographic measures of social position, self-rated health, and patterns of social inclusion.ResultsAmong 2,619 participants, system-justifying beliefs were wide-spread, with the average level of support across ESJS scale items exceeding 50%. Lower ESJS scores were associated with worse health, more loneliness, and lower socioeconomic status. Despite the pattern that marginalization erodes system-justification, several historically marginalized characteristics (e.g., non-white ethnicity and non-binary gender) were associated with relatively high system-justification, compared to matching privileged characteristics (e.g., white ethnicity; masculine gender).ConclusionSupporting our hypotheses, we identify a general trend that social marginalization is associated with less system-justification. Those benefitting from the status quo (e.g., healthier, wealthier, less lonely) were more likely to hold system-justifying beliefs. However, some groups who are disadvantaged within the existing system reported higher system-justification—suggesting that system oppression may be a key moderator of the effect of social position on system justification.

show abstract

Revisiting status quo bias: Replication of Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988)

Cited by 4 publications

References 54 publications

Choice Under Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Empirical Inquiry of a Behavioral Economic Experiment Applied to COVID-19.

Choice Under Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Empirical Inquiry of a Behavioral Economic Experiment Applied to COVID-19.

Anchoring, confirmation and confidence bias among medical decision-makers

Social position and economic system justification in Canada: Implications for advancing health equity and social justice from an exploratory study of factors shaping economic system justification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About