IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v171y2025icp453-461.html

The role of status quo bias in shaping support for controversial transport policies: The counterfactual test

Author

Listed:
  • Moleman, Milan L.
  • van Wee, Bert
  • Steketee, Lennard B.
  • van den Hurk, Noor
  • Kroesen, Maarten

Abstract

A biased preference for the status quo could explain the increased support for policies following their implementation. However, the influence of status quo bias on support for transport policies has been analysed to a limited extent only. The counterfactual test serves as a potential method to empirically explore this influence by framing policies as the existing or alternative situation. This paper employs the counterfactual test to ascertain whether individuals disproportionately favour the status quo. To this end, we have designed separate experiments focusing on three transport policies: road pricing, speed limits, and train ticket fare differentiation. The results indicate that status quo bias does indeed influence support for transport policies. Participants prefer each policy option when framed as the status quo. In contrast, support for the same policy option declines when presented as the alternative situation. These findings underscore the irrational tendency to adhere to the status quo, which may stem from psychological commitments or cognitive misperceptions. Therefore, politicians, policymakers, and practitioners should anticipate a bias towards the status quo when introducing controversial transport policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Moleman, Milan L. & van Wee, Bert & Steketee, Lennard B. & van den Hurk, Noor & Kroesen, Maarten, 2025. "The role of status quo bias in shaping support for controversial transport policies: The counterfactual test," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 453-461.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:171:y:2025:i:c:p:453-461
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.06.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X25002525
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.06.027?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bert van Wee, 2023. "Is it really a stupid idea? The counterfactual check," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 1055-1057, November.
    2. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas & Hamilton, Carl, 2016. "Why experience changes attitudes to congestion pricing: The case of Gothenburg," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-16.
    3. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    4. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    5. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    6. Winslott-Hiselius, Lena & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Vagland, Asa & Byström, Camilla, 2009. "The development of public attitudes towards the Stockholm congestion trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 269-282, March.
    7. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    8. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    9. Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "The role of attitude structures, direct experience and reframing for the success of congestion pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 81-95.
    10. Andersson, Ylva & McGowan, Féidhlim & Timmons, Shane & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Status Quo bias impedes active travel policy by changing the process of opinion formation," Papers WP755, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Beck, Matthew J. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Bushell, James, 2025. "Ready for road pricing reform? Identifying segments of support in Australia and uncovering (Hidden) attitudes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2020. "Who are more likely to break the rule of congestion charging? Evidence from an active scheme with no referendum voting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 63-79.
    3. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    4. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non‐Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, April.
    5. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    6. Tian, Ye & Li, Yudi & Sun, Jian, 2022. "Stick or carrot for traffic demand management? Evidence from experimental economics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 235-254.
    7. Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Congestion pricing," MPRA Paper 88224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    9. Zhang, Wenjia & Liu, Chengcheng & Zhang, Hongmou, 2023. "Public acceptance of congestion pricing policies in Beijing: The roles of neighborhood built environment and air pollution perception," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 106-120.
    10. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    11. Andreassen, Gøril L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2024. "Can policy packaging help overcome Pigouvian tax aversion? A lab experiment on combining taxes and subsidies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    12. Börjesson , Maria & Kristoffersson, Ida, 2017. "The Swedish congestion charges: ten years on: - and effects of increasing charging levels," Working papers in Transport Economics 2017:2, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    13. Grüner, S. & Fietz, A., . "Chancen, Grenzen und Barrieren staatlicher Regulierungspolitik – Eine verhaltensökonomische Betrachtung unter Berücksichtigung des individuellen landwirtschaftlichen Unternehmensverhaltens," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49.
    14. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.
    15. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    16. Nobel Prize Committee, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    17. Börjesson, Maria & Kristoffersson, Ida, 2018. "The Swedish congestion charges: Ten years on," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 35-51.
    18. De Borger, Bruno & Glazer, Amihai, 2017. "Support and opposition to a Pigovian tax: Road pricing with reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 31-47.
    19. Özgül Ardıç & Jan Anne Annema & Eric Molin & Bert Wee, 2018. "The association between news and attitudes towards a Dutch road pricing proposal," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 827-848, May.
    20. Grisolía, José M. & López, Francisco & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2015. "Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 37-47.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:trapol:v:171:y:2025:i:c:p:453-461. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    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.