Editing Status quo bias (section)

===Mere exposure===
[[Mere exposure]] is an explanation for the status quo bias.  Existing states are encountered more frequently than non-existent states and because of this they will be perceived as more true and evaluated more preferably. One way to increase liking for something is repeated exposure over time.<ref name=exposure>{{cite journal|last=Bornstein|first=R.F.|title=Exposure and affect: Overview and meta- analysis of research|journal=Psychological Bulletin|year=1989|volume=106|issue=2|pages=265–289|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265}}</ref>

;Loss aversion
'''[[Loss aversion]]''' also leads to greater regret for action than for inaction;<ref name="KahnemanSlovicTversky1982">{{cite book|last1=Kahneman|first1=Daniel|last2=Slovic|first2=Paul|last3=Tversky|first3=Amos|title=Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases|journal=Science|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_0H8gwj4a1MC|year=1982|volume=185|issue=4157|pages=1124–31|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1126/science.185.4157.1124|pmid=17835457|bibcode=1974Sci...185.1124T |isbn=978-0-521-28414-1|s2cid=143452957}}</ref> more regret is experienced when a decision changes the status quo than when it maintains it.<ref name=inman>{{cite journal|last=Inman|first=J.J.|author2=Zeelenberg |title=Regret repeat versus switch decisions: The attenuation role of decision justifiability|journal=Journal of Consumer Research|year=2002|volume=29|pages=116–128|doi=10.1086/339925|url=https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f5fedc5c08a2}}</ref> Together these forces provide an advantage for the status quo; people are motivated to do nothing or to maintain current or previous decisions.<ref name=Samuelson /> Change is avoided, and decision makers stick with what has been done in the past.

Changes from the status quo will typically involve both gains and losses, with the change having good overall consequences if the gains outweigh these losses. A tendency to overemphasize the avoidance of losses will thus favour retaining the status quo, resulting in a status quo bias. Even though choosing the status quo may entail forfeiting certain positive consequences, when these are represented as forfeited "gains" they are psychologically given less weight than the "losses" that would be incurred if the status quo were changed.<ref name="BostromOrd2006">{{cite journal|last1=Bostrom|first1=Nick|last2=Ord|first2=Toby|title=The Reversal Test: Eliminating Status Quo Bias in Applied Ethics|journal=Ethics|volume=116|issue=4|year=2006|pages=656–679|doi=10.1086/505233|pmid=17039628|s2cid=12861892|url=http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/691705|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

The loss aversion explanation for the status quo bias has been challenged by [[David Gal]] and Derek Rucker who argue that evidence for loss aversion (i.e., a tendency to avoid losses more than to pursue gains) is confounded with a tendency towards [[Psychological inertia|inertia]] (a tendency to avoid intervention more than to intervene in the course of affairs).<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Gal|first1=David|last2=Rucker|first2=Derek D.|date=2018-07-01|title=The Loss of Loss Aversion: Will It Loom Larger Than Its Gain?|journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology|language=en|volume=28|issue=3|pages=497–516|doi=10.1002/jcpy.1047|s2cid=148956334|issn=1532-7663|doi-access=free}}</ref> Inertia, in this sense, is related to omission bias, except it need not be a bias but might be perfectly rational behavior stemming from transaction costs or lack of incentive to intervene due to fuzzy preferences.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sjdm.org/~baron/journal/jdm06002.pdf|title=A Psychological Law of Inertia and the Illusion of Loss Aversion|last=Gal|first=David|website=www.sjdm.org|access-date=2018-12-09}}</ref>

;Omission bias
[[Omission bias]] may account for some of the findings previously ascribed to status quo bias. Omission bias is diagnosed when a decision maker prefers a harmful outcome that results from an omission to a less harmful outcome that results from an action.<ref name=":4">Ilana Ritov and Jonathan Baron, "Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 [1992]: 49–61)</ref>

Overall implications of a study conducted by Ilana Ritov and Jonathan Baron, regarding status quo and omission biases, reveal that omission bias may further be diagnosed when the decision maker is unwilling to take preference from any of the available options given to them, thus enabling reduction of the number of decisions where utility comparison and weight is unavoidable.<ref name=":4" />