jost_j_t_kay_a_c_thorisdottir_n_social_and_psychological_bas

Evaluative Advantages of the Status Quo

Acting in concert with these cognitive processing advantages is a series of evaluative biases: existing states seem to be assigned worth, value, and goodness by virtue of their existence. Research also demonstrates the devaluation of nonexisting states; options are dismissed, disregarded, and/or devalued when they represent alternatives to the status quo. We discuss several findings to make these points, giving special attention to our own research.

Mere Exposure Effect. Since Zajonc (1968) published his influential monograph on the mere exposure effect, hundreds of experiments have demonstrated that simple, unreinforced exposure to stimuli enhances positive affect toward these stimuli (for reviews, see Bornstein, 1989; Harrison, 1977). As an early demonstration, participants were shown pictures of faces (Zajonc, 1968). The frequency of exposure to the pictures was varied, such that some were shown one or two times, others as many as 25 times. Participants then rated how much they liked the faces in the picture, as well as how much they thought they would like to meet the person. The more frequent was participants’ exposure to the face, the more they said they liked it, and the more they thought they would enjoy meeting the person.

The range of stimuli affected by mere exposure is impressive, including names, drawings, words, polygons, and musical selections. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure have been demonstrated with actual people as stimuli (Brockner & Swap, 1976; Saegert, Swap, & Zajonc, 1973), even in naturalistic settings (Moreland & Beach, 1992). Although boundary conditions exist (e.g., the stimuli must not be initially aversive), increased liking as a result of simple, unreinforced exposure is a strong and robust finding. The biasing consequences in favor of the status quo are clear. Since existing states will be encountered more frequently, mere exposure will lead them to be evaluated more positively.

Post-decision Dissonance Effects. The status quo is often determined by the choices we make. Post-decision dissonance will enhance our commitment to the outcomes that result from these decisions. According to Festinger (1957), any two elements (cognitions) are dissonant if one follows from the obverse of the other. The recognition of this inconsistency is thought to produce psychological tension (dissonance), motivating the person to reduce it. Regarding decisions, unfavorable attributes of what is ultimately chosen and favorable attributes of rejected alternatives are inconsistent with one’s choice. To reduce tension thought to result from this recognition, chosen options should be enhanced and rejected alternatives devalued.

A classic study by Brehm (1956) tested these ideas. As part of what was ostensibly a consumer research project, participants were asked to indicate their preference for eight objects (e.g., a toaster, desk lamp, etc.). As remuneration for their time, participants were asked to choose between one of two objects they rated, either between two initially high-ranked objects or between a high-ranked object and one of lesser desirability. In addition, a control condition was run in which participants were simply given a highranked object. After making their selection (or being given their gift), participants were asked to re-rank the objects. Although no change in rankings were found in the control condition, a “spreading of alternatives” emerged when participants made a choice: the chosen option was upgraded and the rejected alternative was downgraded, although overall upgrading of the chosen object was a much weaker effect. However, other research points to conditions that enhance chosen options. For example, it seems that it is the less favorable aspects of chosen alternatives that get better (Gerard & White, 1983), and that enhancement of what is chosen is most likely when options are initially unattractive (Shultz & Lepper, 1996; Shultz, Léveillé, & Lepper, 1999). Similarly, devaluation of that which has been rejected is strongest when initial attractiveness between/among alternatives is high. In either case, the result is an increase in the relative preference for chosen alternatives. Since the status quo typically represents a “chosen” alternative, its more negative components are likely to be biased upward in a favorable manner, and alternatives not chosen are likely to be downgraded. Implications for this process in the ratings of winning and losing political candidates are powerful and straightforward; presidential winners gain in positivity, losers gain in negativity (Beasley & Joslyn, 2001; see also Kay, Jiminez, & Jost, 2002).

Status Quo Bias, Loss Aversion, and Regret Avoidance. Also relevant to decision making is research on status quo bias. In an initial set of studies, Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) asked participants to consider a number of hypothetical decisions and manipulated which of several options represented the status quo. Results were clear: participants chose alternatives designated as the status quo (e.g., retaining investment in a moderate risk company) at a higher rate than when the same choice was framed as a non–status quo alternative (newly investing in a moderate risk company). Just describing an option as the status quo had the effect of increasing the likelihood that it was chosen. Similar findings were found in the context on ongoing, realworld decisions. University employees are more likely to remain enrolled in their existing health plans, even though the distribution of new enrollees matched for age tend to select different plans, indicating that fresh eyes make different choices than those already committed to a course of action

(Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). These findings demonstrate that decision makers prefer previous or currently chosen alternatives, as determined by their own decisions or the decisions of others.

A psychological mechanism that seems implicated in this process is loss aversion (Anderson, 2003; Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler, 1991; Ritov & Baron, 1992). People seem to be loss averse, giving more weight to losses than to corresponding gains (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1990; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). A consequence of this tendency is that people imagine greater regret for action than for inaction. For example, Kahneman & Tversky (1982) found that most people imagine greater regret for acts (e.g., switching stock from Company B to A) than for nonacts (not switching stock from Company A to Company B), even when the outcomes were identical (see also Landman, 1988). The effect is that people do nothing, or maintain their current or previous decision (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988).

Taken together, research on status quo bias, loss aversion, and regret avoidance indicates that decision makers avoid change and stick with what is familiar. These processes carry important implications for status quo maintenance in the domains of bargaining and negotiations, and provide a distinctly psychological explanation for the advantage that incumbent politicians have over their challengers (Quattrone and Tversky, 1988).

Biased Perception of Reformers. Change is also devalued in another way. A number of studies demonstrate biased perception of those seeking to alter existing states, such that reformers are effectively disparaged. Although partisans on both sides of social conflict tend to exaggerate disagreement, this tendency is enhanced among those who represent the status quo (e.g., Robinson, Keltner, Ward, & Ross, 1995). Of particular interest, those seeking change—e.g., pro-lifers in the abortion debate, conservative observers of a racial conflict, and revisionists within English departments—are judged by both sides as more extreme and less reasonable compared with those who represent the status quo (Keltner & Robinson, 1997; Robinson & Keltner, 1996; Robinson et al., 1995; see also Kray & Robinson, 2001).

O’Brien and Crandall (2005) found that reformers seeking to change the status quo (e.g., an activist who wanted to repeal an election law or a lowstatus worker who wanted increased representation for her group) were rated as more self-interested than their status quo–supporting counterparts (an activist who wanted to keep an existing law or a high-status worker who wished to increase her group’s representation). These findings indicate that advocates of change are more likely to be perceived in negative terms than those who support or wish to maintain the current state of affairs. In

addition, their position appears to have less merit, being based not in rational argument, but in mere self-seeking. The result is another advantage for the status quo.

A Mere Existence Bias. Our own research suggests another means by which existing states are advantaged; people seem to assume that existing states are good (Eidelman, Crandall, & Horstman Reser, 2009). This linking of existence with goodness is fundamental to how we construct values, evaluate options, and consider change. From our perspective, neither frequent exposure nor any learning process is necessary in order to connect existence and liking (Zajonc, 2004). We argue instead for a “mere existence” effect, whereby prescription and value follow just from thinking that an outcome represents the status quo. We also part ways with rationalization theories (e.g., Brehm, 1956; Jost & Banaji, 1994; Lerner, 1980) by arguing that the “existence goodness” effect requires no particular motivation for its occurrence. Finally, we argue that the tendency to assume goodness from existence is more general and encompassing than outcomes of personal choice, distinguishing such effects from post-decision dissonance (Brehm, 1956) and status quo bias (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). In sum, we suggest that a positive value is quickly and effortlessly attached to entities and outcomes that represent the status quo. Although other processes can overrule this value assignment, we suggest a straightforward positivity main effect for existing states.

Research on Mere Existence Bias. In a series of studies, we have found that people seem to assume the goodness of existing states. In one study, we gave participants a brief summary of (bogus) degree requirements at their university (Eidelman et al., 2009, Study 1). Participants were led to believe that a requirement of either 32 or 38 credit hours in one’s major was required in order to graduate. Participants were also informed of a possible change to these requirements, either up to 38 credit hours (if the status quo was 32) or down to 32 credit hours (if the status quo was 38) in order to graduate. To minimize relevance (and motivations for rationalization), we told participants that changes would be implemented well after they would have graduated. Brief arguments for each side were presented, and participants were then asked to evaluate both alternatives in terms of being “good,” “right,” and whether they represented “the way things ought to be.”

Prescription followed our status quo manipulation; 32 credit hours was favored relative to 38 credit hours when the former represented the way things were, but preferences flipped when 38 credit hours was said to be the status quo. In other words, we found a main effect for the status quo: participants evaluated the existing requirement as good, right, and the way

Summary. A number of psychological phenomena link value and goodness with existing states: frequent (mere) exposure to stimuli enhances their favorability, outcomes are upgraded once they are chosen, and past decisions are likely to be repeated. People are also averse to risk, avoid regret, and devalue those seeking change, and they seem to equate existence with goodness. To this list we could add findings from a number of other literatures, including research on the propinquity effect (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950), system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980), and neophobia in taste and preference. All converge on the same point: the status quo is more likely to be favored than are other alternatives.

A PSYCHOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE FOR

THE STATUS QUO?

As reviewed earlier, several psychological processes advantage existing states. Some of these processes imply conscious intent. For example, postdecision dissonance effects are thought to result from people’s desire to justify the outcomes of their decisions. The undesirable aspects of what is chosen and the desirable aspects of forgone alternatives are inconsistent with the choice that has been made. Aware of these discrepancies, people work to eliminate the inconsistency (e.g., Brehm, 1956). As others have noted, such rationalization seems to require deliberate effortful thinking “if only to live up to its name” (Lieberman, Ochsner, Gilbert, & Schacter, 2001, p. 138).

Yet, what strikes us is the ease and subtlety with which the status quo is maintained and supported. Status quo maintenance is often initiated without intent, and it occurs regardless of people’s ability to stop it. In addition, often these processes occur outside of awareness and proceed with little or no effort. Processes that share one or more of these characteristics—that is, that require relatively less intent, control, or awareness, or that are relatively efficient—are typically considered to be automatic (Bargh, 1994). By these criteria, many status quo maintenance processes seem to occur automatically. Because their support and endorsement require less effort, intention, awareness, or control, we suggest that existing states carry a psychological advantage over other alternatives (Eidelman & Crandall, 2009).

Automaticity and the Status Quo

Examples suggesting an automatic component to status quo maintenance abound. As noted, research on priming finds that judgment is often assimilated to that which is made cognitively accessible. Importantly, these assimilation effects are strongest when awareness is at a minimum (Lombardi, Higgins, & Bargh, 1987; Strack, Schwarz, Bless, Kubler, & Wanke, 1993).

Automaticity in the form of efficiency is demonstrated by work on primacy. For example, primacy effects are enhanced under time pressure (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983) and mental fatigue (Webster, Richeter, & Kruglanski, 1996). More generally, primacy effects are more likely when people process information in an automatic, heuristic fashion (Freund, Kruglanski, & Schpitzajzen, 1985; Heaton & Kruglanski, 1991; Tetlock, 1983; see also Ybarra, Schaberg, & Keiper, 1999).

Anchoring also appears to be a relatively automatic process. Anchoring is enhanced under time pressure (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983), and warning people of an anchor’s influence does not disrupt the process (Wilson, Houston, Etling, & Brekke, 1996). The effects of anchoring also occur when anchors are presented subliminally (Mussweiler & Englich, 2005).

Evidence of automaticity regarding cognitive reference points comes from Karylowski (1990), who found that comparisons of any prototypic person with a less prototypic other were made more slowly than vice versa. His data indicate that people are more efficient at placing a prototypic (rather than non-prototypic) entity in the referent position for comparative judgments.

These examples highlight the automaticity of several cognitive processes, but many evaluative biases also show evidence of automaticity. For example, status quo bias increases as a function of the number of alternatives to choose among, establishing it as a simple and efficient strategy requiring relatively less effort (Kempf & Ruenzi, 2006; Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988).

Research on mere exposure indicates that effects of exposure on liking occur in the absence of recognition (Wilson, 1979) and when presentation of stimuli occurs subliminally (e.g., Bornstein, Leone, & Galley, 1987; KunstWilson & Zajonc, 1980). In fact, exposure effects are more pronounced when obtained under subliminal conditions than when subjects are aware of repeated exposure (Bornstein, 1989; Bornstein & D’Agostino, 1992).

Even status quo maintenance processes that seem to imply awareness and control as part of a motivational process of justification appear to have an automatic component. Research from the perspective of system justification theory demonstrates system-justifying attitudes on the part of lowstatus group members on implicit measures (Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2002; see also Rudman, Feinberg, & Fairchild, 2002). Similarly, recent findings make a strong case for an automatic component to post-decision dissonance reduction. Lieberman and his colleagues found that anterograde amnesiacs and those under cognitive load upgraded what was chosen/downgraded as the rejected alternative following a decision between two equally liked options on par with control participants, even though the former two groups were severely restricted in their ability to remember making a choice (Lieberman et al., 2001).

Our own research provides another example of the automaticity of status quo maintenance. We again misled participants regarding degree requirements at their university. This time, some were led to believe in a 34-credit major requirement, whereas others were led to believe in a 40-credit requirement. Participants were told of a proposed change to these requirements (40 credit hours if the status quo was 34, and 34 credit hours if the status quo was 40). In this study, we presented all participants with arguments supporting 40 credit hours (this was done as a means of exploring a possible boundary condition of the evaluative effects of mere existence, i.e., persuasive appeals opposed to a status quo alternative). Participants then indicated whether they thought each alternative was “good,” “right,” and “the way things ought to be.”

We also manipulated whether participants’ cognitive resources were taxed. This was done by asking half of the participants to simultaneously work on a second task as they answered their questionnaires. Load participants were instructed to listen to a tape of tones varying in pitch, to count the number of tones that preceded each change in pitch, and to indicate this number on the bottom of their questionnaires (see Skitka, Mullen, Griffin, Hutchinson, & Chamberlin, 2002). No Load participants were not given these instructions, nor did they listen to tones while working on their questionnaires.

Because status quo amounted to a counterbalancing factor, we recoded items assessing each option to form “current” (when an option represented the status quo) and “proposed” (when an option represented change) indexes. These indexes were treated as a within-subjects factor in a mixed-model ANOVAwith cognitive load as the between-subjects factor. Only the predicted Index × Load interaction was significant, F(1, 52) 4.89, p < .04. Participants showed no preference for either requirement when cognitive load was low (F < 1). In contrast, load participants thought the current requirement was better (more right, good, and the way things ought to be) (M 6.48) than the alternative (M 4.88), F(1, 52) 7.78, p < .01. A comparison of load and noload conditions within each index indicated that load significantly increased favorability toward the current law but did not decrease favorability toward the proposed law. In other words, cognitive load increased favorability toward an existing state.

CONCLUSION

The biases described here appear to be broad, subtle, and significant. They are based in a wide range of psychological phenomena that include cognitive as well as affective processes. They appear in judgments of probability, in choice paradigms, and liking judgments. They affect policy preferences, social relations, and perceptions of what is right and what is wrong.

The main focus of this volume is on how people justify systems, primarily in a political context. The connection between status quo support and political ideology is very clear; the defense and support of the status quo represents a core component of political conservatism (Jost, Glasser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Stone, 1994). We suggest that preference for the status quo, and by extension one important component of political conservatism, is basic, privileged, and psychologically ascendant. To the extent that defense of the status quo is the native state of the organism, then any other set of beliefs or values that is inconsistent with the status quo requires more effort, more energy, and more attention than other alternatives.

Social change is difficult for a wide variety of reasons. It requires expense, it requires leadership, and it can require the consent of the governed. Change makes risk explicit. But social change faces another difficulty—it is harder to imagine an alternative universe, and this alternative is likely to feel colder and less appealing than the status quo. There is a wide range of ways that people work in a motivated way to support, justify, and defend the status quo, as system justification theory makes clear. In addition, a wide variety of relatively unmotivated cognitive and affective processes makes the status quo seem more prevalent, more appealing, more correct, more the way things ought to be. Any serious attempts at social change must overcome this initial barrier.

REFERENCES

Agostinelli, G., Sherman, S. J., Fazio, R. H., & Hearst, E. S. (1986). Detecting and identifying change: Additions versus deletions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 445–454.

Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139–167.

Anderson, N. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 1230–1240.

Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 1. Basic Processes, pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bargh, J. A., Lombardi, W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person × situation effects on person perception: It’s just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 59, 605.

Beasley, R. K., & Josslyn, M. (2001). Cognitive dissonance and post-decision attitude change in six presidential elections. Political Psychology, 22, 521–540.

Biernat, M. R. (2005). Standards and expectancies: Contrast and assimilation in judgments of self and others. New York: Psychology Press.

Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.

Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545–552.

Bornstein, R. F., Leone, D. R., & Galley, D. J. (1987). The generalizability of subliminal mere exposure effects: Influence of stimuli perceived without awareness on social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1070–1079.

Bouton, M. E. (2004). Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learning & Memory, 11, 485–494.

Brehm, J. (1956). Post-decisional changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384–389.

Brockner, J., & Swap, W. C. (1976). Effects of repeated exposure and attitudinal similarity on self disclosure and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 531–540.

Bruine de Bruin, W., & Keren, G. (2003). Order effects in sequentially judged options due to the direction of comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 91–101.

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446.

Devine, P. G., Hirt, E. R., Gehrke, E. M. (1990). Diagnostic and confirmation strategies in trait hypothesis testing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,

952–963.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2009). Automaticity and the status quo. Unpublished manuscript.

Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., & Hortsman Reser, A. (2009). Inferring goodness from existence: A mere existence bias. Unpublished manuscript.

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenterprovided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391–396.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row-Peterson. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informational groups.

A study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.

Freund, T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Shpitzajzen, A. (1985). The freezing and unfreezing of impressional primacy: Effects of the need for structure and the fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 479–487.

Gerard, H. B., & White, G. L. (1983). Post-decisional reevaluation of choice alternatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 365–369.

Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Personality, 54, 733–740.