Decision-making Dilemmas and Solutions to Status Quo Bias from a Multi-field Perspective: Evidence from the Medical, News and Energy Fields

Pengyi Guo

doi:10.54097/dvc50v29

Authors

Pengyi Guo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/dvc50v29

Keywords:

Status Quo Bias, Medical Decision-Making, Information Cocoons, Behavioral Economics, Loss Aversion.

Abstract

Status quo bias is a cognitive tendency to maintain the status quo, which seriously hinders people from making optimal decisions in fields such as healthcare, media, and energy. This study uses multi-field case analysis to reveal the theoretical mechanism behind status quo bias, and then proposes optimization solutions to promote optimal decision-making. Studies have shown that medical practitioners over-rely on existing treatment plans due to risk aversion and neural reward mechanisms; the algorithmic mechanism of digital platforms and user cognitive inertia jointly exacerbate information cocoons; household energy decisions are affected by high discount rate assessments and loss aversion, causing households to stick to inefficient equipment. This study innovatively integrates the content of behavioral economics and neuroeconomics, and conducts case analysis in the fields of healthcare, news, and energy. In terms of optimization solutions, this study combines multidisciplinary consultation systems, mandatory algorithm transparency, full-cycle energy cost disclosure, and energy defaults to provide decision makers with theoretical and practical basis for breaking inertial decision-making and improving system adaptability.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making[J]. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 1988, 1: 7-59.

[2] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model[J]. The quarterly journal of economics, 1991, 106(4): 1039-1061.

[3] Westen D, Blagov P S, Harenski K, et al. Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 US presidential election[J]. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2006, 18(11): 1947-1958.

[4] Thaler R H, Sunstein C R. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness[M]. Penguin, 2009.

[5] Fleming-Dutra K E, Hersh A L, Shapiro D J, et al. Prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions among US ambulatory care visits, 2010-2011[J]. Jama, 2016, 315(17): 1864-1873.

[6] Redelmeier D A, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives[J]. Jama, 1995, 273(4): 302-305.

[7] Camilleri A R, Sah S. Amplification of the status quo bias among physicians making medical decisions[J]. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2021, 35(6): 1374-1386.

[8] Rosell L, Wihl J, Hagberg O, et al. Function, information, and contributions: an evaluation of national multidisciplinary team meetings for rare cancers[J]. Rare Tumors, 2019, 11: 2036361319841696.

[9] Scott A, Sivey P, Ouakrim D A, et al. The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians[J]. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011 (9).

[10] Flaxman S, Goel S, Rao J M. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption[J]. Public opinion quarterly, 2016, 80(S1): 298-320.

[11] Bakshy E, Messing S, Adamic L A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook[J]. Science, 2015, 348(6239): 1130-1132.

[12] Westen D, Blagov P S, Harenski K, et al. Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 US presidential election[J]. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2006, 18(11): 1947-1958.

[13] Nguyen T T, Hui P M, Harper F M, et al. Exploring the filter bubble: the effect of using recommender systems on content diversity[C]//Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web. 2014: 677-686.

[14] Bronstein M V, Pennycook G, Bear A, et al. Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking[J]. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2019, 8(1): 108-117.

[15] Diakopoulos N. Automating the news: How algorithms are rewriting the media[M]. Harvard University Press, 2019.

[16] Diakopoulos N, Koliska M. Algorithmic transparency in the news media[J]. Digital journalism, 2017, 5(7): 809-828.

[17] Blasch J, Daminato C. Behavioral anomalies and energy-related individual choices: the role of status-quo bias[J]. The Energy Journal, 2020, 41(6): 181-214.

[18] Davis L W, Metcalf G E. Does better information lead to better choices? Evidence from energy-efficiency labels[J]. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2016, 3(3): 589-625.

[19] Hausman J A. Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables[J]. The bell journal of economics, 1979: 33-54.

[20] Kahneman D, Knetsch J L, Thaler R H. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias[J]. Journal of Economic perspectives, 1991, 5(1): 193-206.

[21] Pichert D, Katsikopoulos K V. Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour[J]. Journal of environmental psychology, 2008, 28(1): 63-73.

[22] Schultz P W, Nolan J M, Cialdini R B, et al. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms[J]. Psychological science, 2007, 18(5): 429-434.