Statüko Yanlılığına İlişkin Bir Literatür İncelemesi ve Teorik Bir Model Önerisi

Öz

Statüko yanlılığı, hayat boyu verdiğimiz binlerce kararı etkileyen bilişsel bir yanlılıktır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bizi çoğu zaman eylemsizliğe iten bu yanlılığı açıklayacak teorik bir model önermektir. Literatür taraması sonucu statüko etkisinin açıklayanları kişisel özellikler ve başka bazı bilişsel yanlılıklar olarak ele alınmıştır. Bu yanlılıklar batık maliyet yanlılığı, kayıptan kaçınma ve ihmal yanlılığıdır. Öte yandan pişmanlıktan kaçınma davranışı da statüko etkisini doğrudan açıklama potansiyeli olan değişkenlerden biri olarak ele alınmıştır. Bilişsel yansıma değişkeni ise, insanların ikinci sistemlerini kullanabilme yeteneklerinin bir ölçüsü olarak, bütün bilişsel yanlılıkların temelinde olabileceği fikrinden hareketle modele dahil edilmiştir. Ortaya konulan teorik model statüko yanlılığını besleyen kanalları aydınlatma potansiyeline sahiptir. Bu sayede statüko yanlılığına hangi durumlarda nasıl müdahale edilebileceğiyle ilgili öngörü ve politika önerileri geliştirilebilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Davranışsal İktisat
• Statüko Yanlılığı
• Bilişsel Yansıma
• Batık Maliyet
• İhmal Yanlılığı

A Literature Review and Theoretical Model Proposal on Status Quo Bias

Abstract

Status quo bias is a cognitive bias that affects the thousands of decisions we make throughout our lives. The purpose of this study is to propose a theoretical model that explains this bias, which often leads us to inaction. The literature review has considered personal traits and other cognitive biases as explanations for the status quo effect. These biases include sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, and omission bias. On the other hand, regret avoidance behavior is also considered as one of the variables that could directly explain the status quo effect. The cognitive reflection variable, as a measure of individuals' ability to use their second systems, has been included in the model based on the idea that it could underlie all cognitive biases. The theoretical model presented has the potential to shed light on the channels that fuel status quo bias. This, in turn, could lead to predictions and policy recommendations regarding when and how to intervene in status quo bias.

Keywords

• Status Quo Bias
• Cognitive Reflection
• Sunk Cost
• Omission Bias.
• Behavioral economics

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, C. J. (2003). The Psychology of doing nothing forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139
2. Aren, S. (2019). Psikolojik yanlılıkların finansal çerçevede değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal, Beşerî ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.29226/TR1001.2019.x
3. Aren, S., ve Nayman Hamamci, H. (2021). Biases in managerial decision making: overconfidence, status quo, anchoring, hindsight, availability. Journal of Business Strategy Finance and Management, 3(1–2), 08-23. https://doi.org/10.12944/jbsfm.03.01-02.03
4. Arkes, H. R., ve Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
5. Balakrishnan, J., Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L. ve Boy, F. (2021). Enablers and inhibitors of ai-powered voice assistants: a dual-factor approach by integrating the status quo bias and technology acceptance model. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10203-y
6. Baron, J. ve Ritov, I. (2004). Omission bias, ındividual differences, and normality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.03.003
7. Bergers, D. (2022). The status quo bias and its individual differences from a price management perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102793
8. Boyce, C., Czajkowski, M. ve Hanley, N. (2019). Personality and economic choices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 94, 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.12.004

9. Bozoğlan, B. ve Demirci, V. G. (2020). İktisadi karar verme sürecinde statüko yanlılığı kişilik özelliklerinden bağımsız mıdır? Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(2), 534–549. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsosbil.795897
10. Braverman, J. A. ve Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. (2012). Assessment of the sunk-cost effect in clinical decision-making. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.006
11. Duxbury, D. (2012). Sunk Costs and sunk benefits: a re-examination of re-investment. The British Accounting Review, 44, 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.07.004
12. Fleming, S. M., Thomas, C. L., ve Dolan, R. J. (2010). Overcoming status quo bias in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(13), 6005–6009. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910380107
13. Foster, J. (2020). Loss aversion and sunk cost sensitivity in all-pay auctions for charity: theory and experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 84. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101486
14. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
15. Geng, S. (2016). Decision time, consideration time, and status quo bias. Economic Inquiry, 54(1), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12239
16. Haller, A. ve Schwabe, L. (2014). Sunk costs in the human brain. NeuroImage, 97, 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.036
17. Jamison, J., Yay, T., ve Feldman, G. (2020). Action-inaction asymmetries in moral scenarios: replication of the omission bias examining morality and blame with extensions linking to causality, intent, and regret. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89(May). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103977
18. Jung, H., ve Lim, S. (2021). Status quo bias in ocean marine ınsurance and implications for Korean trade. Journal of Korea Trade, 25(5), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.35611/jkt.2021.25.5.39
19. Kahneman, D. (2017). Hızlı ve yavaş düşünme. Varlık Yayınları.
20. Kahneman, D. ve Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of The Econometrica Society, 47(2), 236–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
21. Khare, A., Chowdhury, T. G. ve Morgan, J. (2021). Maximizers and satisficers: can’t choose and can’t reject. Journal of Business Research, 135(July), 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.008
22. Nebel, J. M. (2015). Status quo bias, rationality, and conservatism about value. Ethics, 125(2), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1086/678482
23. Nel, J., ve Boshoff, C. (2020). Status quo bias and shoppers’ mobile website purchasing resistance. European Journal of Marketing, 54(6), 1433–1466. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2018-0144
24. Oschinsky, F. M., Stelter, A. ve Niehaves, B. (2021). Cognitive biases in the digital age – how resolving the status quo bias enables public-sector employees to overcome restraint. Government Information Quarterly, 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101611
25. Polat, Y. ve Duman, H. (2020). Davranışsal finans kapsamında anomalilerin incelenmesi. Alanya Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 4(3), 603–630. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.672532
26. Rego, S., Arantes, J. ve Magalhães, P. (2018). Is there a sunk cost effect in committed relationships? Current Psychology, 37, 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9529-9
27. Ritov, I. ve Baron, J. (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960030404
28. Ritov, I., ve Baron, J. (1992). Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(1), 49–61.
29. Ronayne, D., Sgroi, D. ve Tuckwell, A. (2020). Evaluating the sunk cost effect. (CAGE Online Working Paper Series 475). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.029
30. Samioğlu, M. (2020). Tüketici satın alma karar süreçlerini etkileyen sezgiseller: marka sadakati eğiliminde bilişsel yanılgıların rolü. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
31. Samuelson, W. ve Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
32. Serim, H. ve Küçükşenel, S. (2020). Davranışsal iktisat ve dürtme: sağlık politikaları özelinde bir inceleme. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(3), 531–559. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.658117
33. Sofis, M. J., Jarmolowicz, D. P., Hudnall, J. L. ve Reed, D. D. (2015). On sunk costs and escalation. The Psychological Record, 65(3), 487–494. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s40732-015-0124-5
34. Thaler, R. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3<183::AID-BDM318>3.0.CO;2-F
35. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. ve Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: an expansion of the cognitive reflection test. Thinking and Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
36. Tunalı, G. (1983). Beynin enerji metabolizması. Ondokuzmayıs Tıp Dergisi, 2(83), 83–92.
37. Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
38. van de Ven, N. ve Zeelenberg, M. (2011). Regret aversion and the reluctance to exchange lottery tickets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.11.008
39. Xiao, Q., LAM, C. S. E., Piara, M. ve Feldman, G. (2020). Revisiting status quo bias: replication of Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988). Meta-Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2020.2470
40. Yiğit, A. G. (2019). Rasyonel bireyin beklenen fayda teorisine davranışsal yaklaşım: sınırlı rasyonelliğin bekleinti teorisi. Bilim Dünyasında Multidisipliner Çalışmalar içinde (s. 95-112). Berkan Yayınevi.
41. Yiğit, M. (2022). İkinci sistem statükoya karşı! Statüko etkisi ile bilişsel yansıma arasındaki ilişkiye dair bir araştırma. U. Özkaya (Ed.), 1st International Conference on Engineering, Natural and Social Sciences içinde (s. 308-316).