Effects of comparability of promotions on inaction inertia

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>Based on mental accounting theory, this study explored whether the comparability of missed and subsequent promotional formats/frames affects inaction inertia.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title><jats:p>Four experiments with imaginary and incentive-compatible designs were conducted to test the hypotheses.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title><jats:p>Consumers are more likely to express inaction inertia after having missed a comparable promotion than after having missed a noncomparable promotion. Devaluation of the promoted target mediates the impact of comparability on inaction inertia, while referent others' actions do not moderate the comparability effect. Finally, when consumers accept a subsequent inferior promotion, they prefer using a different payment format because it reduces comparability of the two promotions.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Practical implications</jats:title><jats:p>Companies should use different promotional formats/frames to reduce comparability and inaction inertia when a new promotion is relatively inferior to a recent previous one. Companies should offer different payment options to help customers actively avoid comparing a current promotion with a missed promotion.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title><jats:p>This study provides a more comprehensive conceptual structure for understanding the relationship between psychological comparability and inaction inertia. It provides insights into what actions companies should take to reduce inaction inertia. Furthermore, this study empirically tests the influence of multiple comparison referents, which provides a reference point for future studies on the factors affecting inaction inertia. A new method to examine whether consumers actively avoid comparisons is used, which clarifies the internal mechanism of inaction inertia.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Effects of quantity promotional frames on inaction inertia

“…The results of Experiment 1 combined with van Putten et al. 's (2007) study and Liu and Chou's (2018, 2021) studies demonstrate that different research contexts and inferences (cost assignment vs categorization of mental accounts) point to different internal mechanisms. Thus, future studies should further explore which factor, comparability or perceived loss, has stronger effects on inaction inertia in specific contexts.…”

“…According to van Putten et al. (2007) and Liu and Chou (2021), higher comparability induces higher inaction inertia. However, the results of the pilot study imply that the perceived loss of missing the freebie promotion has a greater impact on inaction inertia than the comparability of the missed and current promotions.…”

“…A growing number of factors that influence inaction inertia have also been identified (e.g. Foster and Diab, 2017; Liu and Chou, 2021; Terris and Tykocinski, 2016; Kumar, 2004, 2019; Mathmann et al. , 2017; Tykocinski and Pittman, 1998; van Putten et al.…”

“…A growing number of factors that influence inaction inertia have also been identified (e.g. Foster and Diab, 2017;Liu and Chou, 2021;Terris and Tykocinski, 2016;Kumar, 2004Kumar, , 2019Mathmann et al, 2017;Tykocinski and Pittman, 1998;van Putten et al, 2007;Zhang et al, 2016). However, existent studies have not examined the relationship between quantity promotional frames and inaction inertia and their mediators.…”

“…, 2002; Butler and Highhouse, 2000; Foster and Diab, 2017; Krijnen et al. , 2020; Kumar, 2004; Liu and Chou, 2018, 2019a, b, 2021; Terris and Tykocinski, 2016; Terris et al. , 2020; Tykocinski and Pittman, 1998; van Putten et al.…”