Action bias
Action bias is the
Overview
People tend to have a preference for well-justified actions. The term “action bias” refers to the subset of such voluntary actions that one takes even when there is no explicitly good reason to do so.[2] In the case of a decision with both positive and negative outcomes, action will be taken in favor of achieving an apparent advantageous final result, which is preferred over inactivity. If besides gains, losses occur or resources are redistributed adversely, this will be neglected in the decision-making process.[2] Its opposite effect is the omission bias.[3]
Theories
Multiple different
There is a general tendency to reward action and punish inaction.[1] As shown by operant conditioning, rewards are more efficient in increasing the display of a behavior than punishments are in decreasing the likelihood of the display of a behavior. This results in humans choosing action rather than inaction. Engaging in action can also serve as means of signalling and emphasizing one's productivity to others which is rewarded by societal praise more than positive results originating from inactivity. Action also provides the doer with the impression of having control over a situation, which creates a feeling of personal security.[1] This is in contrast to inaction, which is more readily linked with feelings of regret in face of the lack of praise and even possible punishments for it.[4] The outcome associated with each action or inaction also affects future decisions, since the link is inevitably and immediately reinforced or punished each time a behavior is carried out; only a neutral outcome does not contribute to learning.[1][2]
Another reason for the existence of the bias might be that people develop the decision heuristic of taking action but then transfer it to an inappropriate context, resulting in action bias.[2]
Real-world effects
In politics
In
In medicine
In the field of
Action bias occurs among patients as well. When equally presented by a physician with the options of either taking medicine or just resting, most patients greatly prefer taking the medicine. This preference prevails even when patients are warned that the medicine could cause certain side effects or when they are explicitly told that there would be no effect in taking the medicine.[6]
Causes
The causes of intervention bias in medicine are most likely an interplay of two other biases researched in humans: self-interest bias and confirmation bias.[5] Another reason for intervention bias can be found in the fear of malpractice cases, as possible charges can be pressed.[5]
The self-interest bias occurs if a person shows self-serving behaviors and justifies those in favor of their own interests.
Impacts
Due to the action bias, medical intervention becomes less objective, the physician's primary focus can no longer be the best possible therapy for the patient, possible therapies may be implemented without proper, tailored testing.[5][7] Other consequences include incorrect and biased medical advice, and additionally physical harm to the patient and collapse of health care systems.[5] Although physicians also have the choice to wait and see if the symptoms subside or intensify and then perform a follow-up check, which would be temporary inaction, instead it is common to perform direct testing and prescription of medication.[3]
In sports
According to some psychologists, the
However, this analysis ignores game theory and the dynamics of the sport. Because the penalty spot is only 12 yards away, the goalposts are 24 feet apart, the crossbar is 8 feet high, and the ball will be struck with great force, the goalkeeper cannot stand still and wait for the ball to be struck, because they will not have time to reach it. The ball could go to any of the four corners. To have a chance to make a save, the optimum strategy is to guess the target location and begin moving before the opponent's foot touches the ball. This context negates the claim of bias, because the goalkeeper is expected to put in the visible effort to make a save and actively prevent a goal, rather than arrive too late by waiting for directional certainty. Some penalty takers counter this strategy by rolling or chipping the ball down the middle, which is called a Panenka penalty, after a Czech player who made it famous at the UEFA Euro 1976 final.
Action bias is also influenced by previous outcomes. If a team loses a match, the coach is more likely to choose action by changing some of the players, than inaction, even though this might not necessarily lead to a better performance.[4] As expressed by one coach, “Just because I can do something doesn’t mean that I should, or that that activity is relevant.”[9]
In economics and management
Action bias also influences decision-making in the field of
In environmental decision-making
The effect of action bias in environmental policy decisions has been investigated by Anthony Patt and Richard Zeckhauser. They argued that action bias is more likely to lead to nonrational decision-making in this domain due to uncertainty and delayed effect of actions, contributions coming from many parties, no effective markets, unclear objectives and few strong incentives.[2] The study concluded that the value of a decision is influenced by one's perceived involvement, individual susceptibility for action bias, as well as framing and context, leading to the occurrence of action bias in environmental policies.[2]
Other types
Utility-based
The utility-based action bias is a type of action bias that underlies
Single
The term single-action bias was coined by
Another example of single-action bias is house owners that live in coastal regions that are likely to be flooded due to sea level rise (SLR). They can take small actions by piling resources or making sandbags in case of flooding or bigger actions by taking out flood insurance, elevating their homes or moving into a region that is less at risk for flooding. The first smaller action they take (making sandbags) takes away their anxiety about possible flooding and thereby makes it less likely to take actions that might have a better outcome in the long run, such as moving into another region.[13] An option to eliminate the single-action bias is to have group discussions, in which people suggest different ideas to find a solution. This would give the individual more alternatives to solve the problem.[14]
Elimination
Awareness of the action bias can help to carefully think about the consequences of inaction versus action in a certain situation. This leads to the process not being as impulsive as before and includes logical thinking which facilitates choosing the most efficient outcome. Inaction, in some situations, can enhance patience and self-control.[1] New contexts that encourage making thoughtful decisions or checking for an overview of possibilities can also be beneficial.[1][15]
In medical contexts, full disclosure about the effects of action, especially negative side effects of medication, and inaction during treatment can lead to a lower effect of the action bias. The percentage of people choosing medication goes even lower (10%) when a doctor actively discourages the use of medication.[6]
See also
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i "Action Bias". The Decision Lab. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
- ^ S2CID 154662174.
- ^ PMID 24143333.
- ^ S2CID 24179173.
- ^ PMID 23766747.
- ^ S2CID 215599670.
- S2CID 4182165.
- ^ S2CID 1188584.
- ^ "Full Episode – The Hoops Forum – Ep. 23 – Action Bias in Coaching". Raius Athletics. Retrieved 17 May 2022 – via YouTube.
- ^ PMID 16942861.
- ^ S2CID 128428524.
- ^ "Single Action Bias & Foot in the Door". 20 February 2013.
- S2CID 182478744.
- S2CID 16705138.
- S2CID 243362856.