Editing Status quo bias (section)

==Relevant fields==
The status quo bias is seen in important real life decisions; it has been found to be prominent in data on selections of health care plans and retirement programs.<ref name=Samuelson />

===Politics===
There is a belief that preference for the status quo represents a core component of [[Conservatism|conservative ideology]] in societies where government power is limited and laws restricting actions of individuals exist.<ref name=":1" /> Conversely, in [[liberalism|liberal]] societies, movements to impose restrictions on individuals or governments are met with widespread opposition by those that favor the status quo. Regardless of the type of society, the bias tends to hinder [[progressivism|progressive]] movements in the absence of a [[Reactance (psychology)|reaction]] or backlash against [[The powers that be (phrase)|the powers that be]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sheffer|first=Lior|date=n.d.|title=Political Accountability, Legislator Gender, and the Status Quo Bias|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/political-accountability-legislator-gender-and-the-status-quo-bias/AB4943B8705EB409569D4EE28C0F5FB5|journal=Politics & Gender|volume=17 |issue=3 |language=en|pages=365–401|doi=10.1017/S1743923X19000825|s2cid=214187565|issn=1743-923X|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Hong|first1=Sounman|last2=Lee|first2=Sanghyun|date=April 2018|title=Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: Why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others|url=https://yonsei.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/adaptive-governance-status-quo-bias-and-political-competition-why|journal=Government Information Quarterly|language=en|volume=35|issue=2|pages=283–290|doi=10.1016/j.giq.2018.02.001|issn=0740-624X|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|title=Loss Aversion in Politics|url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alesina/files/ap-lossaversion-8feb-2017-_002.pdf|journal=Loss Aversion in Politics}}</ref>

===Ethics===
Status quo bias may be responsible for much of the opposition to human enhancement in general and to genetic cognitive enhancement in particular.<ref name="BostromOrd2006" /> Some ethicists argue, however, that status quo bias may not be irrational in such cases.<ref>{{cite journal | last= Nebel | first = Jacob | year = 2015 | title = Status Quo Bias, Rationality, and Conservatism about Value | journal = Ethics | volume = 125 | issue = 2 | pages = 449–476 | doi= 10.1086/678482| s2cid = 145343964 |url=http://philpapers.org/rec/NEBSQB}}</ref> The rationality of status quo bias is also an important question in the ethics of disability.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Wasserman | first= David| year= 2015 | title= Disability, Diversity, and Preference for the Status Quo: Bias or Justifiable Preference? | journal = American Journal of Bioethics | volume = 15 | issue = 6 | pages = 11–12 | doi=10.1080/15265161.2015.1028676| pmid= 26030485| s2cid= 40673361| url= https://zenodo.org/record/1234505}}</ref>

===Education===
Education can (sometimes unintentionally) encourage children’s belief in the substantive merits of a particular existing law or political institution, where the effect does not derive from an improvement in their ability or critical thinking about that law or institution. However, this biasing effect is not automatically illegitimate or counterproductive: a balance between social inculcation and openness needs to be maintained.<ref name="civic edu" />

Given that educational curriculums are developed by Governments and delivered by individuals with their own political thoughts and feelings, the content delivered may be inadvertently affected by bias. When Governments implement certain policies, they become the status quo and are then presented as such to children in the education system. Whether through intentional or unintentional means, when learning about a topic, educators may favour the status quo. They may simply not know the full extent of the arguments against the status quo or may not be able to present an unbiased account of each side because of their personal biases.<ref name="civic edu" />

===Health===
An experiment to determine if a status-quo bias, toward current medication even when better alternatives are offered—, exists in a stated-choice study among asthma patients who take prescription combination maintenance medications.
The results of this study indicate that the status quo bias may exist in stated-choice studies, especially with medications that patients must take daily such as asthma maintenance medications. Stated-choice practitioners should include a current medication in choice surveys to control for this bias.<ref name="MohamedHauber2008">{{cite journal|last1=Mohamed|first1=AF|last2=Hauber|first2=AB|last3=Johnson|first3=FR|last4=Meddis|first4=D|last5=Wagner|first5=S|title=Status Quo Bias in Stated Choice Studies: Is it Real?|journal=Value in Health|volume=11|issue=6|year=2008|pages=A567–A568|doi=10.1016/S1098-3015(10)66867-2|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Retirement plans===
A study in 1986 examined the effect of status quo bias on those planning their retirement savings when given the yearly choice between two investment funds. Participants were able to choose how to proportionally split their retirement savings between the two funds at the beginning of each year. After each year, they were able to amend their chose split without switching costs as their preferences changed. Even though the two funds had vastly different returns in both absolute and relative terms, the majority of participants never switched the preferences across the trial period. Status quo bias was also more evident in older participants as they preferred to stay with their original investment, rather than switching as new information came to light. 
<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Samuelson |first1=William |title=Status Quo Bias in Decision Making |journal=Journal of Risk and Uncertainty |date=1988 |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=31–32 |doi=10.1007/BF00055564 |s2cid=5641133 |url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00055564.pdf |access-date=24 April 2021}}</ref>

=== In negotiation ===
Korobkin’s has studied a link between negotiation and status quo bias in 1998. In this studies shows that in negotiating contracts favor inaction that exist in situations in which a legal standard and defaults from contracts will administer absent action. This involves a biased opinion opposed to alternative solutions.<ref>Korobkin, R. (1998) ‘Inertia and Preference in Contract Negotiation: The Psychological Power of Default Rules and Form Terms’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 51(6), p. 1583.</ref> Heifetz’s and Segev’s study in 2004 found support for existence of a toughness bias. It is like so-called endowment effect which affects seller’s behavior.<ref>Heifetz, A. and Segev, E. (2004) ‘The evolutionary role of toughness in bargaining’, Games and Economic Behavior, 49(1), pp. 117–134. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2003.11.001.</ref>

=== Price management ===
Status quo bias provides a maintenance role in the theory-practice gap in price management, and is revealed in Dominic Bergers’ research regarding status quo bias and its individual differences from a price management perspective.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Bergers |first=Dominic |date=2022-01-01 |title=The status quo bias and its individual differences from a price management perspective |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698921003593 |journal=Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services |language=en |volume=64 |pages=102793 |doi=10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102793 |s2cid=239971577 |issn=0969-6989|url-access=subscription }}</ref> He identified status quo bias as a possible influencer of 22 rationality deficits identified and explained by Rullkötter (2009),<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rullkötter |first=Lydia |url=https://worldcat.org/oclc/859358107 |title=Rationalitätsdefizite im Preismanagement Eine empirische Untersuchung |date=2009 |publisher=Beuth Verlag GmbH |isbn=978-3-410-17308-3 |oclc=859358107 |language=de}}</ref> and is further attributed to deficits within Simon and Fassnacht’s (2016) price management process phases.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Simon |first1=Hermann |title=Preismanagement für Konsumgüter |date=2016 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11871-6_10 |work=Preismanagement |pages=431–459 |place=Wiesbaden |publisher=Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden |isbn=978-3-658-11870-9 |access-date=2022-04-29 |last2=Fassnacht |first2=Martin|doi=10.1007/978-3-658-11871-6_10 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Status quo bias remained as an underlying possible cause of 16 of the 22 rationality deficits. Examples of these can be seen within the analysis phase and implementation phase of price management processes.

Bergers reveal that status quo bias within the former price management process phase potentially led to complete reliance on external information sources that existed traditionally. This bias, through a price management perspective, can be demonstrated when monitoring competitor’s pricing. In the latter phase, status quo bias potentially led to the final price being determined by decentralised staff, which is potentially perpetuated by existing system profitability within price management practices.<ref name=":2" /> 

=== Mutual fund market ===
An empirical study conducted by Alexandre Kempf and Stefan Ruenzi examined the presence of status quo bias within the U.S. equity mutual fund market, and the extent in which this depends on the number of alternatives given.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Kempf |first=Alexandre |author2=Stefan Ruenzi |year=2006 |title=Status Quo Bias and the Number of Alternatives: An Empirical Illustration from the Mutual Fund Industry |journal=Journal of Behavioral Finance |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=204–213 |citeseerx=10.1.1.545.8974 |doi=10.1207/s15427579jpfm0704_3 |s2cid=216137059}}</ref> Using real data obtained from the U.S. mutual fund market, this study reveals status quo bias influences fund investors, in which a stronger correlation for positive dependence of status quo bias was found when the number of alternatives was larger, and therefore confirms Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) experimental results.<ref name="Samuelson" />

=== Economic research ===
Status quo bias has a significant impact on economics research and policy creation. Anchoring and adjustment theory in economics is where people's decision-making and outcome are affected by their initial reference point. The reference point for a consumer is usually the status quo. Status quo bias results in the default option to be better understood by consumers compared to alternatives options. This results in the status quo option providing less uncertainty and higher expected utility for risk-averse decision makers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Geng |first1=Sen |title=Decision Time, Consideration Time, and Status Quo Bias |journal=Economic Inquiry |date=January 2016 |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=433–449 |doi=10.1111/ecin.12239|s2cid=153199766 }}</ref> Status quo bias is compounded by loss aversion theory where consumers see disadvantages as larger than advantages when making decision away from the reference point.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kahneman |first1=Daniel |title=Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics |journal=The American Economic Review |date=2003 |volume=93 |issue=5 |pages=1449–1475 |doi=10.1257/000282803322655392 |jstor=3132137 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3132137 |access-date=20 April 2023 |issn=0002-8282|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Economics can also describe the effect of loss aversion graphically with a consumer’s utility function for losses having a negative and 2 times steeper curve than the utility function for gains.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kahneman |first1=Daniel |title=Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics |journal=The American Economic Review |date=2003 |volume=93 |issue=5 |pages=1449–1475 |doi=10.1257/000282803322655392 |jstor=3132137}}</ref> Therefore, they perceive the negative effect of a loss as more significant and will stay with status quo.  Consumers choosing the status quo goes against rational [[consumer choice]] theory as they are not maximising their utility. Rational consumer choice theory underpins many economic decisions by defining a set of rules for [[consumer behaviour]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gerasímou |first1=Georgios |title=Consumer theory with bounded rational preferences |journal=Journal of Mathematical Economics |date=September 2010 |volume=46 |issue=5 |pages=708–714 |doi=10.1016/j.jmateco.2010.08.015|url=https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18673/1/MPRA_paper_18673.pdf }}</ref> Therefore, status quo bias has substantial implications in economic theory.