Status quo bias
We prefer things to stay as they are, even when another option is just as good or better.
What problem it addresses
It explains why it is so hard to get people to change provider, plan, or habit, even when changing is in their interest.
An example
A California electric utility asked its customers which combination of price and reliability they preferred. Some had very reliable service and others had more outages.
Each group preferred, above all, what it already had. Only 6% chose the other group’s service.
Why it happens
What we already have is the reference against which we measure any change.
What we lose by changing weighs more than what we gain.
Not changing requires no decision and no risk of getting it wrong.
Applications in design
Use it like this
If you want someone to change, make it easy and show them what they lose by staying as they are.
Avoid
Putting obstacles in the way of canceling and taking advantage of the fact that people do not change.
Don’t fall for it
Ask yourself: if you were starting from scratch today, would you choose what you have?
60%
What the research says
Customers with reliable service who preferred their current situation. Among those with more outages, the figure was 58% (Hartman, Doane, and Woo, 1991).
Solid evidence. Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) also found it in experiments and in real decisions, such as choosing a health or retirement plan.
Connections
Authors and works
- 1988
William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser
Named it and measured it in experiments and real decisions.
- 1991
Raymond Hartman, Michael Doane, and Chi-Keung Woo
Observed it in real customers of an electric utility.
Sources
Original sources
- Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. View source: Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988)
- Hartman, R. S., Doane, M. J., & Woo, C.-K. (1991). Consumer rationality and the status quo. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(1), 141–162. View source: Hartman, R. S., Doane, M. J., & Woo, C.-K. (1991)
Last reviewed: