IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v124y2014i1p47-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role

Author

Listed:
  • Lu, Jingyi
  • Xie, Xiaofei

Abstract

The status quo effect derived from loss aversion is common in decision making. However, we propose that advisors (vs. personal decision makers) are less susceptible to such an effect because they are less loss-averse. The difference in loss aversion between personal decision makers and advisors is reflected in both the query order and content. Compared to advisors, personal decision makers produce more queries favoring the status quo, at an earlier time, than those favoring the new option. As hypothesized, the status quo effect was observed among personal decision makers, but not among advisors (Studies 1 and 2). Query order and content were found to mediate the impact of decision maker’s role on the status quo effect (Study 2). When personal decision makers and advisors made queries in the same order (Study 3) or of the same content (Studies 4a and 4b), the difference between self–other decision making disappeared.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu, Jingyi & Xie, Xiaofei, 2014. "To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 47-55.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:124:y:2014:i:1:p:47-55
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597813001179
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.12.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danit Ein-Gar & Baba Shiv & Zakary L. Tormala, 2012. "When Blemishing Leads to Blossoming: The Positive Effect of Negative Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(5), pages 846-859.
    2. Raymond S. Hartman & Michael J. Doane & Chi-Keung Woo, 1991. "Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(1), pages 141-162.
    3. Jonas, Eva & Frey, Dieter, 2003. "Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 154-168, July.
    4. Sen, Sankar & Johnson, Eric J, 1997. "Mere-Possession Effects without Possession in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(1), pages 105-117, June.
    5. Kempf, Alexander & Ruenzi, Stefan, 2005. "Status quo bias and the number of alternatives: An empirical illustration from the mutual fund industry," CFR Working Papers 05-07, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    7. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    8. Johnson, Eric J & Hershey, John & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-51, August.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    10. Polman, Evan, 2012. "Self–other decision making and loss aversion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 141-150.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. "Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-61, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lu, Jingyi & Jia, Huiyuan & Xie, Xiaofei & Wang, Qiuhong, 2016. "Missing the best opportunity; who can seize the next one? Agents show less inaction inertia than personal decision makers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 100-112.
    2. Bergers, Dominic, 2022. "The status quo bias and its individual differences from a price management perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Tim D. Bauer & Sean M. Hillison & Mark E. Peecher & Bradley Pomeroy, 2020. "Revising Audit Plans to Address Fraud Risk: A Case of “Do as I Advise, Not as I Do”?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2558-2589, December.
    4. Dominic Bergers, 2021. "Individual differences in the susceptibility of biases relevant in price management: a state-of-the-art article," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(4), pages 497-528, August.
    5. Polman, Evan & Wu, Kaiyang, 2020. "Decision making for others involving risk: A review and meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    6. Liu, Yi & Polman, Evan & Liu, Yongfang & Jiao, Jiangli, 2018. "Choosing for others and its relation to information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 65-75.
    7. Lu, Jingyi & Chen, Yuqi & Fang, Qingwen, 2022. "Promoting decision satisfaction: The effect of the decision target and strategy on process satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1231-1239.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roee Teper, 2010. "Probabilistic Dominance and Status Quo Bias," Working Paper 5864, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    2. Heribert Gierl & Roland Helm & Stefan Stumpp, 2001. "Wertfunktion der Prospect-Theorie, Produktpräferenzen und Folgerungen für das Marketing," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 559-588, September.
    3. Riella, Gil & Teper, Roee, 2014. "Probabilistic dominance and status quo bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 288-304.
    4. Burmeister, Katrin & Schade, Christian, 2007. "Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 340-362, May.
    5. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    6. Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Reference Dependence and Market Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1073-1097, December.
    7. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.
    8. Sandri, Serena & Schade, Christian & Mußhoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2010. "Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs' disinvestment choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-44, October.
    9. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Ugarte Ontiveros, Darwin, 2021. "Cognitive bias in insurance: Evidence from a health scheme in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    10. D'Orlando, Fabio & Ferrante, Francesco, 2009. "The demand for job protection: Some clues from behavioural economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 104-114, January.
    11. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Meikle, Sarah, 2016. "Uptake and usage of cost-reflective electricity pricing: Insights from psychology and behavioural economics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 455-467.
    12. Brigitte C. Madrian & Dennis F. Shea, 2001. "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1149-1187.
    13. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2008. "Measuring “Awareness of Environmental Consequences”: Two Scales and Two Interpretations," MPRA Paper 101868, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. Michael Collins, J. & Urban, Carly, 2014. "The dark side of sunshine: Regulatory oversight and status quo bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 470-486.
    16. Pech, Wesley & Milan, Marcelo, 2009. "Behavioral economics and the economics of Keynes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 891-902, December.
    17. Insaf Bekir & Faten Doss, 2020. "Status quo bias and attitude towards risk: An experimental investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(5), pages 827-838, July.
    18. K. P. M. Winssen & R. C. Kleef & W. P. M. M. Ven, 2016. "Potential determinants of deductible uptake in health insurance: How to increase uptake in The Netherlands?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1059-1072, December.
    19. Avital Moshinsky & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2004. "Loss Aversion and Status-Quo Label Bias," Discussion Paper Series dp373, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, revised Apr 2007.
    20. Astrid Gamba & Anna Bottasso, 2019. "Consumer inertia in energy markets: Insights from behavioral economics," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(3), pages 113-130.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:124:y:2014:i:1:p:47-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.