Action vs. Status Quo: Which Is More Problematic?

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

I recently read a piece by Miller and Fillat (2023) discussing issues inherent in the “Do Something Syndrome” as it relates to politicians and policymaking. Though the Do Something Syndrome sounds like some sort of diagnosable illness, it is nothing more than what is referred to in behavioral economics as action bias (I’ll be using the behavioral economics expression because this tendency is more accurately described as a bias).

Action bias can adversely affect policymaking when it goes unchecked, but so can a corresponding and opposite bias: the status quo bias. Although it may seem counterintuitive that we possess two opposite biases, each serves a functional purpose. Here, I’ll explain in more detail why each bias can be quite functional, but also when each can adversely affect decision-making.

Status Quo Bias

Status quo bias is exactly what it sounds like—the tendency to take no action and maintain the status quo. First identified by Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988), status quo bias tends to operate as the predominant bias in situations where there is no motivational force to initiate action. It represents something akin to an If it ain’t broke, why fix it? bias. If we’re sufficiently satisfied with the status quo, then we’re likely to continue to default to it. For example, when we go to a restaurant, we often default to something we’ve eaten there before rather than trying something new.

ThoughtCo. (2019) offers some additional examples of status quo bias for those interested, but the key driving force behind this bias is the presence of a sufficiently satisfactory status quo. Even if other alternatives exist, those other alternatives often come with uncertainty and the potential risk of creating a situation that is less satisfactory than the status quo. Therefore, there is no motivational force initiating change, and we’ll tend to reject alternative options without fully considering them.

Action Bias

Whereas status quo bias tends to occur in situations in which we’re sufficiently satisfied with the status quo, action bias is the tendency to choose action over inaction in specific situations and was first discussed by Patt and Zeckhauser (2000). Action bias occurs when decision-makers demonstrate the propensity to act, assuming their action is likely to be a better choice than inaction even if there is no reason for such a conclusion.

As an example of action bias, Bar-Eli et al. (2007) showed that, even though the probability of stopping a penalty kick was higher if the goalie remained in the middle of the net, most elite soccer goalies still chose to dive to the right or left. The decision was a result of action bias, assuming that inaction was a poor choice, leading goalies to dive to one side or the other.

For action bias to occur, a situation requires the presence of a strong enough motivational force that the decision-maker defaults to the conclusion that action is required. In other words, the choice of do nothing and wait and see are largely omitted as options from the decision process. And, while there are times when action is likely desirable to inaction, action bias occurs when there is a tendency to favor action over inaction in certain situations, even if there is insufficient evidence to warrant taking action (or a specific type of action). It is therefore assumed, in such situations, that the taking of action is likely to yield benefits, even if such an assumption lacks validity.

But as Miller and Fillat discuss, many decisions that are assumed will lead to benefits because action is taken, especially in the context of policymaking, often result in poorly considered cost–benefit assessments, such as may occur with the push to ban gas stoves and water heaters. And, while the evidence may be mixed regarding the overall costs and benefits of such a ban (e.g., Melillo, 2022; Silenas, 2020), simply concluding, based on a cursory review of evidence, that banning gas appliances is clearly better than doing nothing is a case of action bias.

The decision to act without considering the likelihood of the action producing the desired benefit, whether the cost of acting is sufficient to justify the benefit expected, or if the action may produce unexpected consequences that could result in a net negative impact are all characteristics of decision-making where an action bias is present.

Bias Essential Reads

Why Do Some Women Support Sexist Behavior?

A Psychological Bias Helps Golfers Make Putts

These types of decisions are more likely to occur when a situation possesses what is perceived to be an expectation for action. Whether we’re talking about a goalie who’s expected to do something to make the save or the politician who’s expected to solve some problem, failing to bring about the desired effect is often easier to justify when some action has been taken.

But our own overconfidence and need to exert some control can also lead to action bias (The Decision Lab, n.d.). We may overestimate our own ability to affect a problem. We may also believe that decisive action is necessary to alter an undesirable status quo or reduce the potential for adverse outcomes, even if there’s no evidence that decisive action is needed or the given actions will have their intended effect. So, anytime we conclude that “We need to do something” without really being able to articulate why and which something makes sense; we’re likely relying on our action bias.

Tradeoffs Galore

Both status quo bias and action bias possess functional utility. Given that we have limited resources that we can allocate to decision-making, it is beneficial to avoid altering the status quo when there’s little reason to do so. For example, there may be no reason to waste time thinking about quitting a job you’re reasonably satisfied with. But it can also be beneficial to take decisive action when decisive action is called for. If your refrigerator stops working, there’s likely no reason to consciously consider inaction as a viable alternative.

But, on the flip side, sometimes we accept the status quo longer than we should, such as if you wait until your car completely breaks down before you decide to have that rattling noise checked out by a mechanic. And, sometimes, we act before we think things through, such as if we decide to buy a new car before even determining what is causing that rattling noise.

While there are clearly times when inaction is ideal (i.e., there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest the status quo needs changing) and times when action definitely is (i.e., if we do not act, something bad will certainly occur), there are plenty of situations where some evidence that could motivate action exists, but it’s unclear whether and which action is required. These are the times when it can benefit us to seek more information before deciding¹ whether action is required and, if so, which action(s) to take. Failing to do so may lead us to either (1) wait too long before acting, thus producing bigger problems than we might have encountered by acting sooner, or (2) take action that is ill-advised, potentially having little to no impact on the situation—or, worse, making the situation worse.²