Post
JA EN

The Psychology of 'The Three Bs' - Why We Search for Reasons Not to Act

Posted
By
12 min read
The Psychology of 'The Three Bs' - Why We Search for Reasons Not to Act
  • Target Audience: IT Engineers, Team Leaders, People Interested in Self-Growth
  • Prerequisites: None (reading the previous article enhances understanding)
  • Reading Time: 10 minutes

Overview

In the previous article “Changing Yourself is More Efficient Than Changing Others,” we discussed how changing yourself is more efficient than trying to change others. However, while reading that article, some of you may have thought “That makes sense, but my situation is different” or “Because I’m so busy right now.”

This article explores why people search for reasons not to act, even when they understand intellectually that they should change — examining the psychological mechanisms behind this behavior.

The Identity of “The Three Bs”

“But,” “Because,” and “Bother” (as in “why bother”) — let’s call these The Three Bs. Some people use these words habitually. From a psychological perspective, this isn’t just a personality issue; rather, it’s the result of multiple cognitive biases built into the human brain working together.

Status Quo Bias

“Status quo bias,” proposed by psychologists Samuelson and Zeckhauser in 1988, refers to humans’ tendency to avoid change and maintain the current state1.

A 2025 study published in Transport Policy confirmed that when the same policy options were framed as either “status quo” or “alternative,” support rates differed significantly. Participants preferred options presented as the status quo, with support declining for the same options when presented as alternatives2.

In other words, “the current way” tends to be supported simply because it is “the current way,” regardless of objective evaluation.

Loss Aversion

At the root of status quo bias is “loss aversion.” According to Prospect Theory by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, people feel the pain of losses about twice as strongly as the joy of gains3.

Neuroscience research has confirmed that gains and losses are processed differently in the brain, with loss signals tending to dominate the evaluation process4.

Change always involves risk. Learning new skills means “losing” time. Trying new methods “might” lead to failure. These potential “losses” feel heavier than the benefits of change, which drives people to maintain the status quo.

The Psychology of Excuses

Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Justification

There’s a contradiction between the recognition “I should change” and the reality “I haven’t changed.” According to “Cognitive Dissonance Theory” proposed by psychologist Leon Festinger, this contradiction creates psychological discomfort5.

There are mainly two ways to resolve this discomfort:

  1. Change behavior (actually make the change)
  2. Change perception (find reasons not to change)

Research shows that many people prioritize short-term mood repair and try to resolve dissonance by creating excuses6. In this process called “Rationalization,” people invent new explanations or excuses to justify contradictory behavior.

For example, someone who knows they “should study” but is playing games tells themselves “I’m tired today” or “I’ll do it all on the weekend.” This temporarily resolves the discomfort from cognitive dissonance, but doesn’t solve the fundamental problem.

Self-Handicapping

An even more interesting phenomenon is “self-handicapping”7. This is a behavioral pattern of preparing excuses in advance in case of failure.

There are two types of self-handicapping:

  1. Behavioral handicapping: Actually creating obstacles (not studying until the night before a test, drinking alcohol, etc.)
  2. Claimed handicapping: Preparing verbal excuses (“I wasn’t feeling well,” “I didn’t have time”)

A 2022 study showed that people with a fixed mindset (believing abilities are innate and unchangeable) are more likely to engage in self-handicapping8. Fearing that failure will be interpreted as “lack of ability,” they create situations in advance that allow them to blame external factors.

While this protects self-esteem in the short term, it leads to repeated performance decline in the long term, ultimately lowering self-evaluation further.

Resistance to Change: Psychological Reactance

The “Push and Resist” Psychology

In 1966, Jack Brehm proposed “Psychological Reactance Theory,” which explains that when people feel their freedom is threatened, they develop motivation to reclaim that freedom9.

In other words, when external (or internal) pressure to “change” is too strong, people want to resist change even more.

A 2019 study confirmed that people show stronger resistance to attempts to change their thinking than to attempts to change their behavior10.

Identity Threat

Even more serious is when change is perceived as a threat to identity. One study showed that the correlation between psychological reactance and identity threat was 0.81, which is very high11.

“Changing yourself” means, in a sense, “denying your current self.” Especially when current behavior patterns are strongly tied to self-identity, resistance to change becomes even stronger.

The Science of Procrastination

Procrastination as Emotion Regulation

One manifestation of “searching for reasons not to act” is procrastination. A 2024 study in Psychology in the Schools views procrastination as a failure of self-regulation12.

Avoiding procrastination requires four self-regulation elements:

  1. Learning from failure (cognitive and motivational)
  2. Goal setting (cognitive and motivational)
  3. Decision making (strategic)
  4. Persistence (volitional)

From an emotional perspective, procrastination can be understood as a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy13. When tasks are perceived as threats to self-esteem or competence, negative emotions like anxiety, frustration, and boredom arise. To escape these emotions, people delay starting tasks and gain short-term relief, but sacrifice long-term goals.

Relationship with Mindfulness

Research shows that procrastination tendency is associated with lower mindfulness, and people with higher mindfulness show decreased procrastination over time. Interventions that increase mindfulness are said to reduce procrastination by decreasing negative emotions14.

“The Three Bs” in Engineering Contexts

Not Facing Technical Debt

Common “Three Bs”:

  • “But this code is working”
  • “Because there’s no time for refactoring”
  • “Why bother, nobody reads this code anyway”

Psychological Analysis:

This is a typical combination of status quo bias and loss aversion. Refactoring has “losses” in time and effort, but the future loss of accumulating technical debt is less visible, so maintaining the status quo is chosen.

Countermeasures:

  • Visualize technical debt (metrics, documentation)
  • Start with small improvements (increase self-efficacy)
  • Clearly calculate “maintenance costs”

Not Learning New Technologies

Common “Three Bs”:

  • “But current technology is sufficient”
  • “Because new things might become obsolete soon”
  • “Why bother learning new things at my age…”

Psychological Analysis:

A typical example of self-handicapping. Using “age” or “lack of time” as excuses avoids responsibility for not learning new technologies. Also, “current technology is sufficient” is rationalization to resolve cognitive dissonance.

Countermeasures:

  • Start with small success experiences (cultivate growth mindset)
  • Reframe learning time as “investment”
  • Create learning communities with colleagues (social support)

Not Seeking Feedback

Common “Three Bs”:

  • “But asking for reviews might be a bother”
  • “Because I don’t want to be criticized”
  • “Why bother, my code is fine anyway”

Psychological Analysis:

A combination of fear of failure and self-handicapping. By not seeking feedback, people maintain the perception that “there’s no problem” and try to protect their self-esteem. However, this hinders long-term growth.

Countermeasures:

  • Reframe feedback as “opportunity for improvement” rather than “attack”
  • Start seeking feedback in small units
  • Express gratitude to those who give feedback (positive reinforcement)

Escaping “The Three Bs”

Here are some suggestions based on psychology research. However, effects vary by individual.

1. Replace “But” with “And”

Cognitive Reframing Technique:

  • ❌ “I want to change, but I don’t have time”
  • ✅ “I want to change, and time is limited. So, what can I do with limited time?”

“But” creates opposition, while “and” acknowledges both facts and creates an attitude of seeking solutions.

2. Aim for “Progress” Not “Perfection”

Self-handicapping stems from fear of failure. By aiming for small progress rather than perfection:

  • The risk of failure becomes smaller
  • Success experiences increase, enhancing self-efficacy
  • A growth mindset develops

3. Turn Excuses into “Experimental Hypotheses”

Turn the excuse “I can’t do it because I don’t have time” into the hypothesis “Can’t I do it if I don’t have time?”

  • Try for just 5 minutes
  • Observe the results
  • Revise the hypothesis

Engineers should find this “experimental” approach familiar.

4. Change the Environment

As mentioned in the previous article, changing the environment is more efficient than relying on willpower15.

  • If you want to study, create an environment conducive to studying (turn off notifications, block study time on your calendar)
  • Link new habits to existing ones (read one tech article while making coffee)
  • Find companions (mutual monitoring and social support)

Don’t Try to Change Others’ “Three Bs”

After reading this far, some of you might think “There’s someone around me who constantly uses The Three Bs. I should share this article with them.” However, this is likely to backfire.

Psychological Reactance Kicks In

Remember the “psychological reactance” explained earlier. People resist when they feel their freedom is threatened9.

Someone told to “stop using The Three Bs” will feel:

  • “My way of thinking is being denied”
  • “I’m being pressured to change”
  • “I’m being told my current self isn’t good enough”

As a result, The Three Bs may become even stronger. “Because that person doesn’t understand me” “Why bother, they just want to lecture me” — exactly a chain of Three Bs.

Remember the Previous Article’s Conclusion

As explained in detail in the previous article, psychology research consistently shows:

“People can change only if they feel that they are basically liked and accepted the way they are. When people feel criticized, disliked, and unappreciated they are unable to change.” — John Gottman

Attempts to change others:

  1. Lower relationship satisfaction
  2. Make the other person’s “flaws” more noticeable
  3. Trigger defensive reactions

In other words, the more you point out others’ Three Bs, the more they cling to them.

So What Should You Do?

The “Social Learning Theory” mentioned in the previous article provides a hint. People learn by observing others’ behavior.

What you can do:

  • Show yourself escaping from The Three Bs
  • Share success experiences (as facts, not lectures)
  • Kindly answer when they ask questions

People who can change will change on their own when they see good models (examples). The energy spent trying to forcibly change people who can’t change is better used for your own growth.

Can “People Who Can’t Change” Really Never Change?

In the previous article, I wrote “people who can change will change on their own.” However, this doesn’t mean “people who can’t change will never change in their lifetime.”

Readiness for change is not fixed but fluctuates based on circumstances and motivation. Someone using “The Three Bs” today might be different tomorrow.

What’s important is:

  1. Notice your own “Three Bs” — awareness is the first step to change
  2. Understand the psychological mechanisms behind them — knowing the enemy reveals countermeasures
  3. Start with small actions — big changes are accumulations of small steps

Summary

“The Three Bs” — “But,” “Because,” and “Bother” — aren’t personality issues but manifestations of cognitive biases built into the human brain:

  1. Status Quo Bias: Tendency to want to maintain current ways
  2. Loss Aversion: Tendency to overestimate the risks (losses) of change
  3. Cognitive Dissonance: Tendency to resolve contradictions with excuses
  4. Self-Handicapping: Tendency to prepare excuses in case of failure
  5. Psychological Reactance: Tendency to resist pressure to change

These are, in a sense, “normal” psychological mechanisms acquired through evolution. However, they are not necessarily adaptive in modern society.

When you notice yourself using “The Three Bs,” it’s an opportunity for change. Understanding the psychology behind those excuses and taking a small step — that becomes the concrete first step to “changing yourself” as discussed in the previous article.

Note:

The research cited in this article has been verified through:

  • Confirmation in academic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, etc.)
  • Verification of paper information on official journal websites
  • Cross-verification through multiple independent sources

References

References corresponding to citation numbers in the main text are listed in numerical order.

Additional References (not numbered in main text)

  1. Status quo bias - Wikipedia - Samuelson & Zeckhauser (1988). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  2. The role of status quo bias in shaping support for controversial transport policies - Delft University of Technology, Transport Policy (2025). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  3. Loss Aversion - The Decision Lab. Kahneman & Tversky’s Prospect Theory. [Reliability: Medium-High] ↩︎

  4. The neural dynamics of loss aversion - Imaging Neuroscience, MIT Press (2023). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  5. Cognitive Dissonance In Psychology: Definition and Examples - Simply Psychology. Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory. [Reliability: Medium-High] ↩︎

  6. Hierarchy of Excuses: The Pathetic Path of Least Resistance - Psychology Today. [Reliability: Medium] ↩︎

  7. Self-Handicapping - an overview - ScienceDirect Topics. [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  8. Promoting a growth mindset decreases behavioral self-handicapping among students - PMC (2022). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  9. Understanding Psychological Reactance: New Developments and Findings - PMC. Brehm’s Psychological Reactance Theory. [Reliability: High] ↩︎ ↩︎2

  10. Psychological reactance as a function of thought versus behavioral control - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2019). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  11. Self-identity threat and resistance to change: Evidence from regular travel behaviour - Journal of Environmental Psychology. [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  12. Self‐regulation and procrastination in college students: A tale of motivation, strategy, and perseverance - Psychology in the Schools (2024). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  13. Procrastination and Stress: A Conceptual Review of Why Context Matters - PMC (2023). [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  14. Procrastination and Stress: A Conceptual Review of Why Context Matters - PMC (2023). On the relationship between mindfulness and procrastination. [Reliability: High] ↩︎

  15. Behavior Change - Duckworth, A. L., & Gross, J. J. (2020). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. [Reliability: High] ↩︎

Psychology
Psychology Self-Growth Cognitive-Bias Behavior Change Decision-Making
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.