SOURCE: Mark Batterson images, 2025.
Now there’s something to think about.
It’s a bit of a paradox when you think about it; for those who have read my recent blog on procrastination, on the surface this appears to be the virtual opposite. But I assure you it’s not.
READ ON:
Have you noticed that decision papers, or options analyses, always seem to put in that token “status quo” option? That’s not being flippant, nor is it being reluctant; it’s a legitimate acknowledgement. In my poli-sci courses that I took back in the ‘90s, this dictum came up every now and then; it’s an integral part of a fulsome policy evaluation.
So, yes, a policy-maker or decision-maker could easily be tilted towards the side of caution if they fear that any decision will bring about negative repercussions – which provides them with a certain sense of control over the situation or the environment.
Maybe some of you have heard one of the early songs by the Canadian band Rush, called Free Will, which contains a revealing passage on this conundrum:
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
Ain’t that the truth! You heard it from them; they said you heard it from above 😉
So a further conundrum of the matter is THIS: is inaction a bias, or a heuristic??
Well, why not BOTH??
In the literature, they talk about the omission bias, in which action is judged more harshly than doing nothing – even if they result in similar consequences. In more recent years, the classic problem of the trolley lever has resurfaced – in view of the emergence of self-driving cars – but it’s been around for a while now. For those of you who haven’t heard of it, the trolley lever problem entails two very non-appealing scenarios: a runaway railroad trolley is hurtling down the tracks and will crash into five people, most likely killing them – but you have the power to throw a lever that will send it down another track and only kill ONE person. What do you do?? https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/omission-bias
Let’s face it – you’d be criticized regardless, and a great deal of it would be based on conjecture. (Maybe it would’ve self-braked or gone off the tracks, maybe this, maybe that…)
The opposite of the omission bias is the aptly-named action bias, in which one feels compelled to do something, even when doing nothing may be the better choice. All you hockey fans out there have no doubt encountered this, when you shout at the goalie for reaching for the puck that would’ve stopped had he remained firmly in place. But he clearly felt compelled to take action!!
Or, to use another perfect sports analogy, think of tennis: for those of you who have played it, or watched it, you’ve undoubtedly reached for or seen a player swing for the ball when it was going to be OUT. But they were likely influenced by the action bias, where they were afraid of the negative perceptions of the audience who’d be wondering (and judging) why they didn’t take action.
On a macro level, the action bias has reared its head in recent years: just look at the policies of most countries on COVID lockdowns, and they leaned towards the more restrictive side. Save for one country, Sweden, which was arguably thinking in terms of the omission bias. It’s still a controversial argument as to which was better in the long run.
And then you have more pernicious situations as to whether you’re influenced by the action bias or the omission bias: ransom demands, for one, come to mind.
This, of course, can give rise to the perception of a “no-win situation”, especially when it comes to legal and ethical matters. Somehow, there always seem to be sins of commission where there would have been sins of omission and vice-versa.
Might sound simple, but its bloody hard. Maybe because when we “do” something, it gives us the illusion we’re in control. Doing nothing, implies lack of drive or initiative, perhaps a fear, all viewed through a lens of weakness. But is that really true? https://www.annemariecharrett.com/do-nothing-heuristic/
The point is, it’s human nature to want to exert control over one’s circumstances, even when such circumstances call for a certain wisdom, be it individual or collective, to just…let things unfold as they are (or may).
The philosopher Schopenhauer once said that making no decision is simply choosing to let time and circumstance decide for you. I’d have to agree – it’s not always about relinquishing one’s autonomy, but preserving one’s sanity.
For the more recent thinkers on the subject, there’s the late great Daniel Kahneman’s loss aversion affect, how a loss of what you had stings more than a missed opportunity (of something you didn’t have prior-to). This would be intertwined with the omission bias.
With all this in mind, I’m going to spend the rest of today doing…well, not exactly nothing, but binge-watching my favourite series, a departure from my regular study and reading sessions. That is, if I’m not bitten by “the guilt bias” somewhere mid-stream. 😉