Prioritizing action over inaction, without sufficient reasoning to support it, can lead us to mishandle a situation. It’s an automatic response based upon impulse instead of logic. If we make a decision without considering all possible information, the action bias can lead us down a less effective route, compromising our outcome. Here are a few areas where this bias can lead us in the wrong direction.

Hasty decision-making

In many situations, making quick decisions instead of slower, more thoughtful decisions can lead to negative outcomes. For instance, bias frequently occurs when investing. Consider how investors are often compelled to buy and sell stocks in response to stock market volatility rather than letting their investments sit and trusting their long-term strategy. This urge to act can make investors sensitive to news about market fluctuations, causing them to constantly adjust their portfolios. But “stock picking” is notoriously difficult and rarely outperforms index funds—passive investing often beats active (over)management in the long run.⁹

Let’s take a look at another example. Someone who is environmentally conscious might want to do something to reduce their carbon footprint after reading about the impact of single-use plastics and pollution. Perhaps they pledge to throw out all the plastic in their home and replace everything with eco-friendly alternatives made from glass or bamboo. But, in the end, this has worse environmental consequences than doing nothing at all (continuing to use those existing plastic items to keep them out of the landfills and reducing the energy and resources used to manufacture and transport new products). It’s also much easier on the wallet. In this case, simply maintaining the status quo and making gradual changes over time (slowly replacing plastic items as they eventually wear out) can lead to better outcomes for ourselves and the planet.

Overstepping interpersonal boundaries

The action bias can even impact our interpersonal relationships. After an argument, for example, we might try to rush a resolution or insist on solving the problem immediately, even if the other person just needs space to process their feelings. We may attempt to intervene in familial conflicts that have nothing to do with us, try to control how a loved one handles a work situation, or jump in and take over when a child is about to make a mistake. In all of these situations, standing back and practicing patience will almost always help us build stronger, healthier relationships.

In our society, the action bias propagates the belief that those who fail to act are to blame. Even if acting doesn’t pan out as we’d hoped, we can rationalize that it would have been worse if we’d done nothing (even if this isn’t the case). This rationale reinforces our view of action as superior to inaction, creating an endless cycle of poor decisions.

Performative policy-making

In the earliest paper on the action bias, Anthony Patt and Richard Zeckhauser proposed that a systematic challenge we face from taking unnecessary action is in policy-making.² They described how, to make a salient impression, politicians will often pass showy—but relatively ineffective—environmental regulations. Such legislative action gives the impression that something is being done when, in reality, the effects are minimal at best. Our bias towards action may result in us applauding these empty actions, even though the politician is making no real progress.

“Bias for action” workplace cultures

The same applies to organizational settings. Many organizations have adopted a “bias for action” culture in the fast-paced business world. They value rapid decision-making over slow deliberation, and employees are often encouraged to take action, solve problems, and implement ideas without hesitation. While this approach allows organizations to rapidly respond to market changes and maintain a competitive edge, it comes with several potential risks. Employees and leaders alike often make hasty decisions before they have all the information they need to make optimal decisions. For example, companies might rush to adopt new technology without thinking about their likely return on investment, straining their cash flow and leaving them financially vulnerable.

Micromanagement is another familiar workplace consequence of the action bias. With an urge to act, managers might be tempted to micromanage their employees instead of taking a step back and letting them work. This irritates employees and stifles their creativity, but it can also reduce productivity and degrade company culture. Again, inaction is the better route here: trusting employees to handle tasks independently often leads to better outcomes.¹⁰

Intervention-oriented healthcare

Our healthcare system is incredibly intervention-focused. Providers prefer to take action over inaction, even when the benefits of a certain treatment are unclear or of minimal effect.⁷ As a result, doctors can experience a bias toward writing prescriptions or recommending procedures instead of adopting a “wait and see” approach, even when non-intervention might be a better option. 

Not only that, but patients tend to reinforce this approach. When people visit the doctor, they want an active solution, even if the best thing to do is nothing at all. For example, many people ask doctors for antibiotics when they’re experiencing symptoms of a common cold or flu despite antibiotics only being effective for treating bacterial infections. In the case of viral ailments, getting plenty of rest (ironically, doing nothing) is often the best way to help the body recover. 

A recent study suggests that action bias may drive this preference for antibiotics.¹¹ Researchers tried counteracting the bias by reframing rest as an active treatment alternative, which helped reduce (but not eliminate) antibiotic preferences. Around 10% of participants still wanted antibiotics even when they were told about their ineffectiveness in treating viral infections and the potential harms of misuse. This study highlights how difficult it can be to counteract the action bias—even when people are fully informed, the urge to just do something is strong enough to make people overlook important information.

“The devil makes work for idle hands” is an old expression emphasizing that staying busy will keep you out of trouble. It’s just one example of how we consider a lack of action to be inherently wrong. Such misconceptions predate the development of the action bias by centuries. Although this bias is nothing new, we have only recently begun studying its effects. Thus, there are many things that we still don’t fully understand about it. Despite these limitations, researchers have found some evidence of what causes the action bias.

Is it learned or innate?

Thousands of years ago, immediate action was required for our evolutionary ancestors to survive. Our tendency towards action is something hardwired into us from our history as hunter-gatherers.³

This automatic impulse was once incredibly adaptive. But in our modern society, the action bias is less necessary for survival than it once was. That being said, those who act are still rewarded above those who do not. For example, students who participate in class are often praised above those who choose to remain quiet. This reinforces our instinct to act, causing us to engage in this behavior more, thereby making it habitual. Unfortunately, this makes us more likely to respond with action in situations better suited to inaction—such as raising our hands when we don’t know the answer to the teacher’s question.

Not only does rewarding action propagate this bias, but so does punishing inaction. Research shows that people with negative past experiences from failing to act are more likely to engage in the action bias.⁴ Our regret mobilizes us to do something to avoid another failure. Unfortunately, this can backfire if we find ourselves biased towards action in a situation where the best response is doing nothing.

To sum it all up, while it’s likely the action bias originates from human survival, these instincts are strengthened by learning patterns of reinforcement and punishment in our everyday lives.

The action bias and our sense of control

Our need for action also stems from our need for control. Activity makes us feel as though we have the capacity to change things, while passivity makes us feel like we’ve given up and have accepted that we can do nothing more. Essentially, doing something makes us feel better about ourselves than not doing something, reinforcing this behavior.

Furthermore, our overconfidence may encourage us to make unnecessary or even harmful decisions. Sometimes we take action because we feel as though we have significant control over the outcome, even when that outcome is completely random. 

Consider the financial market, where overconfidence causes people to trade frequently, as they’re certain that their decisions will lead to lucrative outcomes. Specifically, this tends to occur in uncertain situations when people attempt to predict which stocks will rise or fall. Their confidence in their ability to make such predictions incites them into action. Granted, action may lead to big gains, but oftentimes traders learn the hard way that things would have been better if they never invested in the first place.⁵

We equate keeping busy with productivity, another quality we assign significant value to. However, a lack of action often proves to be more productive than taking action. 

Imagine being in bumper-to-bumper traffic on a highway. You might find yourself frustrated that you’re moving at a snail’s pace, and consider getting off at the next exit to take back roads to your destination. This could wind up taking even longer than staying on the busy highway, and could cause you to use more gas.

While logic tells us that staying on the highway is more efficient, we feel that getting off is the more efficient decision. This is because when sitting in traffic, we feel like we’re getting nowhere, while on the other route we’re able to drive at a reasonable speed. Here, taking action is actually less productive than deciding to stay put, even if it doesn’t feel that way.

Being aware of the action bias increases our productivity by helping us make decisions based on the most efficient solution, even if that solution is doing nothing. The action bias can cloud our judgements, but if we are cognizant of its effects, we can work to overcome it. This allows us to evaluate situations more effectively and recognize when we misplace our impulse to act.

Choosing inaction over action doesn’t mean giving up. As a matter of fact, it’s frequently more admirable to do so. Consequently, we should avoid taking unnecessary action so that it doesn’t become our default response. Deliberately deciding to do nothing is a good practice in being patient which can be challenging to master. Self-control is a skill that needs to be cultivated, and the more we work on it, the stronger it gets. 

Learning to avoid the action bias is a long-term process that involves going against ingrained impulses and predispositions. Unless the situation demands immediate action, it’s often better to take a step back and evaluate the pros and cons of each possible response. 

Referring back to the example of being stuck in traffic, instead of becoming frustrated and getting off the highway at the first possible exit, sit for a moment to rationalize your situation. Taking time to think through the consequences of action versus inaction can help you either support or negate your initial urge to act. 

Remember, the goal here is not to eliminate action as a response altogether. The point is to give equal consideration to inaction as a possible response, rather than automatically resorting to action. Doing so will allow for more effective decision-making and more profitable outcomes.

What is the opposite of the action bias?

The opposite of the action bias is the omission bias, a phenomenon in which people prefer inaction over action even when both result in similar negative consequences. Omission bias explains how people judge harmful actions more negatively than harmful inactions. For example, many people believe the harm resulting from a vaccine is more serious than the harm resulting from omitting the vaccine.¹²

So, how can these two seemingly opposite biases coexist? The action bias and omission bias apply in different contexts. Research suggests that action is often favored over omission when people seek the better of two outcomes rather than avoiding the worse of two outcomes.¹² Put differently, people are focused on improving a situation with action bias, but with omission bias, people want to avoid making a situation worse. Expectation also has much to do with it—inaction is judged more harshly when it violates an expectation. In contexts where action is expected, such as stopping a train when someone is on the tracks, failing to act is seen as more harmful than acting, even if both outcomes lead to harm. 

When is action bias a good thing?

The action bias has its pros and cons. While making impulsive decisions can sometimes lead to poor outcomes, quick decision-making can be valuable in situations that call for immediate action. Try to think of some situations where acting as quickly as possible would be beneficial. Maybe emergencies come to mind? For example—think about how quickly paramedics need to mobilize when they get a call. A bias toward action can be valuable when waiting too long can lead to suboptimal outcomes. Besides encouraging you to act quickly in critical situations, the action bias can help you push past creative blocks or overcome analysis paralysis, where you feel unable to make a decision because you’re overthinking your options. Whether you’re putting off a work project or struggling with your holiday travel plans, the action bias can encourage you to prioritize progress over perfection.

Fast decisions are not always of worse quality than slow decisions. Research by McKinsey indicates that faster decision-making and faster execution of decisions can lead to better company performance—note that winning organizations are generally very good at making decisions that are both high quality and fast.¹³ McKinsey’s survey revealed that winning organizations are much more likely to delegate decisions to the right people, make decisions that align with overall corporate strategy, and commit to decisions once they are made. In fact, a bias for action is one of Amazon’s core leadership values. These top-performing companies have found the perfect balance between action and strategic deliberation—when you have the necessary information and skills to make a decision, speed does not have to come at the cost of quality.

How do you develop a bias for action?

If you frequently feel stuck when making decisions, developing a bias for action can help you get you moving. One way to do this is to break down large tasks into smaller goals.¹⁴ Take incremental steps and focus on one small decision at a time rather than tackling the whole thing at once. Remember that you can make effective decisions with just the most important and relevant information—you don’t have to wait around until you have all the information. This approach allows you to take calculated risks and act more quickly.

You may also be able to learn something from companies that use the action bias successfully. Like top-performing organizations, don’t be afraid to delegate your decisions, seek professional advice, or simply try something and see what happens. Strive to make progress rather than reach perfection. The key here is to actively monitor the results of your decision so you can adjust your strategy if needed rather than sitting back and watching the outcome unfold. Once you commit to action, use that initial momentum to keep moving forward.

What is single-action bias?

Both action bias and single-action bias reflect our tendency to prefer any action over inaction, even when it’s not clear that action would lead to better results. However, single-action bias is our tendency to take only one action to reduce a threat or address a problem. This bias is often discussed in the context of climate change: prioritizing a single preventive measure against climate change can make us feel like we’ve done enough, but this means we often fail to take further steps or explore more effective alternatives.¹⁵ 

A single action bias can show up in other areas as well. For example, a manager might immediately decide to hire more staff to address project delays instead of exploring other ways to speed up workflow, like improving the team’s project management process or ensuring everyone has the tools they need to work efficiently. The single-action bias makes us believe that doing just one thing—like hiring more staff or recycling our plastic containers—is better than doing nothing. Unfortunately, the single action taken is often insufficient to fully address a problem.

Patt and Zeckhauser pioneered the theoretical and empirical exploration of the action bias in 2000.⁶ Their paper defined the action bias as “a penchant for action [that is] a product of nonrational behavior.” They were some of the first to suggest that our proclivity for action is a heuristic or a shortcut that can unfortunately lead to poor decision-making in a variety of circumstances.

Importantly, Patt and Zechauser proposed three reasons for why the action bias might occur. The first is due to evolutionary and experiential reinforcements, which have led us to view action as a means to survival. Additionally, they suggested that we engage in action in hopes of some recognition or reward. Finally, they supposed that taking action helps us to learn about a situation to help us learn how to respond if we encounter similar ones in the future.

The action bias may cause us to overcompensate when experiencing technical difficulties. Rather than patiently waiting for these issues to fix themselves (as they so often do), we try to do anything to speed up the process. However, our desperate efforts are often to no avail—if anything, they might worsen the problem.

This happens every day in our online use. When a website takes too long, we repeatedly reload the page. Or when an app is too slow, we will close out of it hundreds of times. Although waiting is annoying when we are accustomed to instant gratification, sometimes it is the only solution for our internet issues.

The action bias even extends to how we try to fix our devices. Let’s say you spill a glass of water on your laptop, which is closed and shut off on the kitchen counter. What is your first instinct? Probably frantically pressing the on button to ensure your laptop still works. Little do we realize that turning the computer on only causes the water to get deeper into the circuitry, substantially increasing the damage. Instead, the best solution is to wait for the laptop to fully dry by placing it in a bag of rice or in front of a fan. The drier the laptop, the better—which means the longer you hold off on action, the better.

Next time you are experiencing technical difficulties, remember this: sometimes less is more. Give your computer or phone time to sort itself before moving onto the next step.

With all of these new developments in AI, we are eager to incorporate this new technology into everything we do. After all, automation equals optimization, right? As it turns out, this might not always be the case, especially when we ask AI to perform what would otherwise be easy tasks. 

Imagine you get home from work and want to turn on the lights. The simplest solution is to flick the light switch beside the door—so simple, in fact, it essentially equates to inaction. However, excited about the new smart home device you installed, you ask an AI assistant to do this instead. By incorporating this additional step, you cause exponentially more environmental damage (remember that training a single AI system can release up to 25,000 pounds of carbon dioxide).⁸ This is not to say we shouldn’t use AI. But if we can do something ourselves with a simple action, then we should opt for it.

The action bias regularly manifests in the health sector, specifically when it comes to treating patients with unusual symptom presentations that don't seem to require urgent care. If there’s no clear diagnosis, the majority of doctors prefer to run tests in attempts to find the root of the problem, rather than schedule a follow-up to see if symptoms have changed.⁷

This is an example of the action bias, as these patients don’t present with symptoms that require emergency treatment. It would be less costly and less time consuming to schedule a follow-up appointment than it would be to run a full workup, yet doctors tend towards the latter. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, in fact, many patients likely appreciate having their concerns validated in such a way. Regardless, this is still exemplary of the action bias, as it demonstrates a preference for action over inaction in the absence of a true rationale for doing so.

There is an abundance of action bias examples in the realm of investments. As mentioned previously, overconfidence and a desire for control are both leading causes of the action bias. Excessive certainty in one’s ability to make good financial decisions can lead to over-trading. Similarly, a desire to maintain control over your investments might lead you to trade more frequently than you should. However, self-control often makes for a far better strategy, and patience pays off where over-trading doesn’t.

Panic can also lead us to resort to the action bias. Checking your portfolio regularly is a maintenance factor for the action bias, as it brings all changes to your attention. Upon noticing a slight dip in value, you may rashly decide to sell before matters worsen. Often, these drops in value are only temporary, and things right themselves on their own. While taking action might feel like the best form of damage control, it can cost you in the long-term.

What it is

The action bias is our automatic tendency to take action, even when the better choice may be holding off on doing anything at all.

Why it happens

The action bias was once evolutionarily adaptive, becoming hardwired in us as a means of survival. Patterns of reinforcement and punishments cause us to continue engaging in this behavior. 

Other factors contribute to sustaining the action bias, including prior experiences where inaction caused us to fail. Additionally, overconfidence in our ability to predict a favorable outcome and our desire to feel in control over our circumstances both lead us to unnecessarily act.

Example 1 - Difficult diagnoses

When meeting with a patient who presents with unusual symptoms that are difficult to diagnose, but don’t seem to be posing any immediate threat to their wellbeing, doctors tend to engage in the action bias by choosing to run a full workup, rather than scheduling a follow-up appointment. 

Example 2 - Investing

Factors such as panic, overconfidence, and a desire for control can lead us to make poor decisions when it comes to our investments, such as over-trading or selling low. These decisions result from the action bias, as we feel compelled to do something, instead of patiently working towards a future goal.

How to avoid it

Avoiding the action bias requires us to unlearn our impulse to respond with action in ambiguous situations. Instead of reacting automatically, we should consider the consequences of both action and inaction and compare their effectiveness. Doing so permits us to engage in more informed decision-making. 

Why do we anticipate regret before we make a decision? 

We often take action because we are afraid of what will happen if we don’t take action. This is called regret aversion: where we do something to mitigate our future guilt of not doing something. Read this article to learn more about what regret aversion is, why it happens, and how we can avoid it.

Why don't we pull the trolley lever?

 Just as we prefer action over inaction, we also react more strongly to action than inaction. This is especially true when doing something accidentally leads to harmful consequences—even if not acting would have led to similarly disastrous results. This is called the omission bias. Read this article to learn how the action bias connects to the omission bias and how we can work against both of these impulses.