Decoupling the past from the present attenuates inaction inertia

Abstract

Inaction inertia is the phenomenon that one is not likely to act upon an attractive opportunity after having bypassed an even more attractive opportunity. We investigated the boundary conditions of this inaction inertia effect. Based on the mental accounting literature and the transaction decoupling literature we predicted and found in three experiments that tight coupling of the forgone to the current opportunity is a necessary condition for inaction inertia to occur. Inaction inertia decreased when information about the missed opportunity was ambiguous (Experiment 1), when the past opportunity required an extra step to obtain (Experiment 2) and when the past and present opportunity decreased in comparability (Experiment 3). The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed in view of the literature on inaction inertia and on judgment and decision-making.

When Size Matters: Sensitivity to Missed Opportunity Size Increases With Stronger Assessment

“…For example, whether a vacation offer is judged as valuable depends on the size of the vacation discount that a traveler just missed out on. These reactions to missed opportunity size are very robust and have been found in several studies across decades (Arkes et al, 2002;Kumar, 2004;Pittman et al, 2008;Tsiros, 2008;Tykocinski & Pittman, 1998;Tykocinski et al, 1995;van Putten et al, 2007van Putten et al, , 2008van Putten et al, , 2009Zeelenberg et al, 2006). For instance, Tykocinski et al (1995, Experiment 2) demonstrated that a large (as opposed to small or no) missed opportunity results in a decreased acceptance of subsequent offers.…”

Dealing with Missed Opportunities: Action vs. State Orientation Moderates Inaction Inertia

“…Previous research might be viewed in a similar way. For example, "dwelling on the past" might be stopped when people see the two events as unrelated (cf., Van Putten et al, 2007), when the difference in attractiveness is justified by a valid reason, for example the first opportunity was unique and therefore exceptionally attractive (Zeelenberg et al, 2006;Experiment 3), when the presence of another subsequent opportunity decreases the importance of the missed opportunity ( Van Putten et al, 2008), or when it is clear that people have no other choice than to accept the difference in attractiveness, because they will be unable to avoid the missed opportunity anyway (Tykocinski & Pittman, 1998). Based on the current findings we would not only suggest that these findings may be explained in terms of (de)valuation, but also that the reported effects may be moderated by people's state versus action orientation, such that the situational aids to let go of missed opportunities may have the greatest impact on people with a state orientation.…”

“…Thus, the more attractive the missed opportunity (initial inaction) was, the lower the likelihood that people will act on an attractive action opportunity now (inertia). This effect is very robust and has been found for numerous different decisions, such as for buying shoes or beer, joining fitness centers, booking vacations, investing in the stock market and registering for college courses (Arkes, Kung, & Hutzel, 2002;Butler & Highhouse, 2000;Kumar, 2004;Sevdalis, Harvey, & Yip, 2006;Tykocinski, Israel, & Pittman, 2004;Tykocinski & Pittman, 1998Tykocinski et al, 1995;Van Putten, Zeelenberg, & Van Dijk, 2007Zeelenberg, Nijstad, Van Putten, & Van Dijk, 2006;Zeelenberg & Van Putten, 2005).…”

“…To provide a final test of our reasoning, in Experiment 3 we used the same stimulus materials as in Experiment 2, and additionally varied the amount of time that had passed between the missed and the current opportunity. Time has been shown to moderate the inaction inertia effect (Tykocinski & Pittman, 1998;Zeelenberg et al, 2006), and has been shown to segregate events from each other (Soman & Gourville, 1998;Trope & Liberman, 2003; see also Van Putten et al, 2007). In Experiment 3, we measured participants' action orientation and asked them to respond to the "Trip to Rome" scenario.…”

Dealing with missed opportunities: Action vs. state orientation moderates inaction inertia

“…Thus, the more attractive the missed opportunity (initial inaction) was, the lower the likelihood that people will act on an attractive action opportunity now (inertia). This effect is very robust and has been found for numerous different decisions, such as for buying shoes or beer, joining fitness centers, booking vacations, investing in the stock market and registering for college courses (Arkes, Kung, & Hutzel, 2002;Butler & Highhouse, 2000;Kumar, 2004;Sevdalis, Harvey, & Yip, 2006;Tykocinski, Israel, & Pittman, 2004;Tykocinski & Pittman, 1998, 2004Tykocinski et al, 1995;Van Putten, Zeelenberg, & Van Dijk, 2007, 2008Zeelenberg, Nijstad, Van Putten, & Van Dijk, 2006;Zeelenberg & Van Putten, 2005).…”