In many decision-making contexts, people often persist with their previous selections. This predisposition to choose to maintain a current (or previous) choice is referred to as the status quo bias (SQB). In this work, we propose that increased attention towards the status quo option—enabled by its visual salience—is a previously underappreciated driver of SQB. We base this hypothesis on three propositions: (1) the status quo bias option is often more visually salient relative to the non-status quo options on offer, (2) greater visual salience of an option biases attention towards that option, and (3) increased attention towards an option leads to that option being selected at greater rates. We examined the attention hypothesis among 6,854 participants in four studies. Studies 1 and 2 showed that increasing the visual salience of a non-status quo option (i.e., the type of visual salience often garnered by the status quo option) increased the selection rate of that option. Study 3 directly tested the hypothesis by lessening the visual salience of the status quo option. Doing so eliminated SQB. Study 4 replicated and extended the findings of Study 3 in a real-world decision context. Collectively, these studies suggest that the selection of the status quo may often be related to its salience relative to other available options.
ArkesH. R. (1991). Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 486–498.
3.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
4.
Beyth-MaromR. (1982). How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forecasting, 1(3), 257–269.
5.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
6.
BurmeisterK.SchadeC. (2007). Are entrepreneurs’ decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 340–362.
7.
EidelmanS.CrandallC. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(3), 270–281.
8.
EidelmanS.CrandallC. S.PattershallJ. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 765–775.
9.
EriksonR. S. (1971). The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity, 3(3), 395–405.
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
11.
FernandezR.RodrikD. (1991). Resistance to reform: Status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1146–1155.
12.
GalD. (2006). A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 23–32.
13.
GrahamD. J.JefferyR. W. (2011). Location, location, location: Eye-tracking evidence that consumers preferentially view prominently positioned nutrition information. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 111(11), 1704–1711.
14.
JohnsonJ. G.RaabM. (2003). Take the first: Option-generation and resulting choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 215–229.
15.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L.ThalerR. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.
16.
KarlanD.McConnellM.MullainathanS.ZinmanJ. (2016). Getting to the top of mind: How reminders increase saving. Management Science, 62(12), 3393–3411.
KorobkinR. (1997). Status quo bias and contract default rules. Cornell Law Review, 83, 608–687.
19.
KrajbichI. (2019). Accounting for attention in sequential sampling models of decision making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.10.008
20.
KrajbichI.ArmelC.RangelA. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292–1298.
21.
KriegerM.FelderS. (2013). Can decision biases improve insurance outcomes? An experiment on status quo bias in health insurance choice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(6), 2560–2577.
22.
LurieN. H.MasonC. H. (2007). Visual representation: Implications for decision making. Journal of marketing, 71(1), 160–177.
23.
MadrianB. C.SheaD. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149–1187.
24.
McKenzieC.LierschM. J.FinkelsteinS. R. (2006). Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychological Science, 17(5), 414–420.
25.
MilosavljevicM.NavalpakkamV.KochC.RangelA. (2012). Relative visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 67–74.
26.
MoshinskyA.Bar-HillelM. (2010). Loss aversion and status quo label bias. Social Cognition, 28(2), 191–204.
27.
OrquinJ. L.LooseS. M. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 190–206.
28.
O’ShaughnessyE. J.HeeterJ. S.SauerJ. (2018). Status and trends in the U.S voluntary green power market: 2017 data (NREL/TP-6A20-72204). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72204.pdf
29.
ParkhurstD.LawK.NieburE. (2002). Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research, 42(1), 107–123.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1992). Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(1), 49–61.
33.
SamuelsonW.ZeckhauserR. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
34.
SchwartzB.Ben-HaimY.DacsoC. (2011). What makes a good decision? Robust satisficing as a normative standard of rational decision making. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(2), 209–227.
35.
SevillaJ.LuJ.KahnB. E. (2019). Variety seeking, satiation, and maximizing enjoyment over time. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 89–103.
36.
SherifM.SherifC. W. (1964). Reference groups; exploration into conformity and deviation of adolescents. Harper and Row.
37.
ShiX.LinZ.LiuJ.HuiY. K. (2018). Consumer loyalty toward smartphone brands: The determining roles of deliberate inertia and cognitive lock-in. Information & Management, 55(7), 866–876.
38.
ShimojoS.SimionC.ShimojoE.ScheierC. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6(12), 1317–1322.
39.
StilwellB. T.BahleB.VeceraS. P. (2019). Feature-based statistical regularities of distractors modulate attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(3), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000613
40.
SuriG.GrossJ. J. (2015). The role of attention in motivated behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), 864–872.
41.
SuriG.GrossJ. J.McClellandJ. L. (2020). Value-based decision making: An interactive activation perspective. Psychological Review, 127(2), 153–185.
42.
SuriG.SheppesG.SchwartzC.GrossJ. J. (2013). Patient inertia and the status quo bias: When an inferior option is preferred. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1763–1769.
43.
SuriG.ShineJ. M.GrossJ. J. (2018). Why do we do what we do? The Attention–Readiness–Motivation framework. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(4), Article e12382.
44.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
45.
TheeuwesJ. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51(6), 599–606.
46.
TheeuwesJ.GodijnR. (2002). Irrelevant singletons capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(5), 764–770.
47.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.
48.
WangH. C.PomplunM. (2012). The attraction of visual attention to texts in real-world scenes. Journal of Vision, 12(6), 26–43.
49.
YantisS. (2005). How visual salience wins the battle for awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 975–977.
50.
ZimbardoP. G. (1960). Involvement and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion conformity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 86–94.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
