Revealed incomplete preferences under status-quo bias

2007 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
İpek Gürsel Tapkı
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Incomplete Preferences ◽  
Status Quo Bias

scholarly journals Three doors anomaly, “should I stay, or should I go”: an artefactual field experiment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Morone ◽  
Rocco Caferra ◽  
Alessia Casamassima ◽  
Alessandro Cascavilla ◽  
Paola Tiranzoni
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Bayesian Updating ◽  
Anomalous Behavior ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Experimental Results ◽  
Illusion Of Control ◽  
Optimal Decision ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis work aims to identify and quantify the biases behind the anomalous behavior of people when they deal with the Three Doors dilemma, which is a really simple but counterintuitive game. Carrying out an artefactual field experiment and proposing eight different treatments to isolate the anomalies, we provide new interesting experimental evidence on the reasons why subjects fail to take the optimal decision. According to the experimental results, we are able to quantify the size and the impact of three main biases that explain the anomalous behavior of participants: Bayesian updating, illusion of control and status quo bias.

Numerical Information Format and Investment Decisions: Implications for the Disposition Effect and the Status Quo Bias

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Rubaltelli ◽  
Sandro Rubichi ◽  
Lucia Savadori ◽  
Marcello Tedeschi ◽  
Riccardo Ferretti
Keyword(s):  
Investment Decisions ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Disposition Effect ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
Numerical Information ◽  
The Status ◽  
Information Format

scholarly journals The status quo bias and the uptake of open access

First Monday ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa H. Cantrell ◽  
Lauren B. Collister
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Reliable Method ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
The Status ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Methods

In this paper we argue that the framing of open access through language adopted by a variety of stakeholders serves to inhibit the uptake of open access publishing through the mechanisms of complexity and cognitive load. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, we analyze both the language and tiers of decisions that confront authors seeking information online about open access. We conclude that this information is for the most part prohibitively complex and introduces contradictory interpretations and executions of open access that act to motivate a phenomenon known as the status quo bias. The only reliable method of counteracting this status quo bias in order to bolster the uptake of open access is to re-frame the language that is commonly employed in association with open access and to minimize the tiers of decisions expected of authors, which create a barrier rather than a gateway to open access engagement.

Acts of magic: Prototyping in innovative learning environments

2021 ◽  
pp. 14-19
Author(s):  
Mark Osborne
Keyword(s):  
Learning Environments ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Change Leadership ◽  
Readiness For Change ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
Leadership Support ◽  
Innovative Learning ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Innovative Learning Environments ◽  
Physical Spaces

Over recent years, innovative learning environments (ILEs) have become the default style of new-build educational architecture in New Zealand. While offering potential benefits, the implementation of ILEs represents a departure from established practice in most schools and therefore requires significant change leadership support in order to succeed. Prototyping ILE practices can help schools transition into new physical spaces by decreasing status quo bias while increasing individual and organisational readiness for change.

Three Social Choice Rules

2017 ◽  
pp. 54-71
Author(s):  
Andrei Marius Vlăducu
Keyword(s):  
Social Choice ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Choice Rule ◽  
Borda Count ◽  
Social Choice Rule ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
Approval Voting ◽  
The People ◽  
Viable Solution ◽  
Social Choice Rules

The authors analyze three social choice rules (plurality voting, approval voting and Borda count) from a behavioral economics perspective aiming three objectives: 1) if it is a viable solution to use these procedures during mass elections; 2) why individuals prefer a specific social choice rule and not another; 3) how status quo bias and framing effect influence the preference of individuals for a certain social choice rule. The research is conducted with 87 participants to a lab experiment and data suggest that for using approval voting and Borda count during mass elections is necessary to increase the people level of information about their benefits. When making a decision in a political or economic context seem that people tend to prefer simple plurality rule do to its availability and maybe because of its strong reliance with status quo bias.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document