“Doors are closing… Please do not lean against the train door… Next station: Somerset…” What’s this, you say? If you aren’t familiar with this phrase, it probably means you aren’t a frequent traveller of the MRT (Mass Rapid Transport) or public transport in general.
Based on the Land Transport Authority, in 2016 the number of daily trips made with private vehicles hit 4.3 million, whereas public transport only hit 2.7 million. Although they have noticed an improvement since 2012, whereby more people are opting to travel by public transport, researcher Lee Der-Horng from the National University of Singapore (NUS) believes that the “shift towards public transport is not significant enough” (Abdullah & Tan, 2018). The amount of greenhouse gas emitted per person when travelling by private transport is higher as compared to travelling by public transport, and hence worsen the global warming situation and in turn, potentially hasten the rate of rising sea levels.
Despite knowing the problem it brings, why do some individuals maintain their previous decision of travelling by private cars instead of public transport? Why are they biased towards the status quo? By taking on a psychological perspective, a possible explanation for this behaviour could be found.
“Rational decision making”
In the presence of transition costs, individuals try to “rationalise” their decisions. However, “rational decision making” tends to be associated with a preference for the status quo (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). In this case, transition costs could include the time taken to analyse the difference in travelling time when taking private transport to public transport or the time taken to analyse the new route to get to their destination – for example, which bus to take or which MRT station allows transfers between different lines. This would be too time consuming and effortful. By taking into account these considerations, the cost of switching from private to public transport exceeds the benefits of taking public transport – reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus the rate of rising sea levels. Hence, individuals stick to the status quo, which is to travel by private transport.
Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is another explanation for the status quo bias. Individuals tend to have a drive for consistency. However, when we encounter evidence that threatens our need for consistency, we experience a great deal of mental discomfort, also known as cognitive dissonance. To avoid this, individuals may choose to continue behaving in the same way (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2013). Let’s now apply this to our issue. With the rise in climate change campaigns, people are more aware of the environmental problems brought about by the large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. This information challenges individuals who have not been living a sustainable lifestyle – for example, travelling by private transport. This results in cognitive dissonance. To reduce cognitive dissonance, individuals may choose to justify their current behaviour instead of changing it. A change in behaviour would prevent their need for consistency from being fulfilled. Hence, individuals who have initially been travelling by private transport choose to continue doing so and not switch over to public transport.