Status-quo and omission biases
Ilana Ritov and Jonathan Baron use scenarios in which change happens unless someone acts, which lets them separate a preference for the status quo from a preference for not acting. Participants reacted more strongly to bad outcomes caused by action, whether or not the action preserved the status quo, and they chose inaction even when inaction led to change. A matching task that required no action showed no status quo bias, and the authors conclude that status quo bias is at least partly driven by a bias toward omission.
Ilana Ritov and Jonathan Baron use scenarios in which change happens unless someone acts, which lets them separate a preference for the status quo from a preference for not acting. Participants reacted more strongly to bad outcomes caused by action, whether or not the action preserved the status quo, and they chose inaction even when inaction led to change. A matching task that required no action showed no status quo bias, and the authors conclude that status quo bias is at least partly driven by a bias toward omission.
Written from the abstract as published with the paper, read 2026-10-28.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1992). “Status-quo and omission biases.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(1), 49-61. doi:10.1007/BF00208786 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208786