Inaction inertia is the phenomenon that forgoing an initial attractive opportunity decreases the likelihood of taking a subsequent opportunity that is less attractive, even when the subsequent opportunity still offers positive value. We conducted three preregistered replications of Tykocinski et al.’s Experiments 1 and 2’s four scenarios in four samples (N = 1,555). We found consistent findings across samples, with the inaction inertia effect dependent on the scenario used. Strongest support was for the car scenario (d = −0.57 to −0.68) and the ski scenario (d = −0.18 to −0.67), with mixed findings for the fitness scenario (large-small: d = −0.62; control contrasts: opposite to predictions) and weak to no effects for the flyer scenario (d = −0.14 to 0.02). We conclude that context is important in studying inaction inertia, recommend the car and ski scenarios for follow-up research on inaction inertia, and discuss implications for future research.
AndersonC. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139–167.
2.
ArkesH. R.KungY. H.HutzelL. (2002). Regret, valuation, and inaction inertia. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 371–385.
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
4.
CamererC. F.DreberA.HolzmeisterF.HoT. H.HuberJ.JohannessonM.KirchlerM.NaveG.NosekB. A.PfeifferT.AltmejdA.ButtrickN.ChanT.ChenY.ForsellE.GampaA.HeikenstenE.HummerL.ImaiT.IsakssonS. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 637–644.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
7.
FosterC. C.DiabD. L. (2017). To accept or not to accept a job offer: Examining inaction inertia in an organizational context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 634–645.
8.
GelmanA.LokenE. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time [Unpublished manuscript]. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/∼gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf
9.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549.
10.
KelleyK. (2007). Methods for the behavioral, educational, and social sciences: An R package. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 979–984.
11.
KleinR. A.VianelloM.HasselmanF.AdamsB. G.AdamsR. B.AlperS.Mark AveyardM.AxtJ. R.BabalolaM. T.BahníkS.BatraR.BerkicsM.BernsteinM. J.BerryD. R.BialobrzeskaO.BinanE. D.BocianK.BrandtM. J.BuschingR.RédeiA. C. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 443–490.
12.
KossmeierM.TranU. S.VoracekM. (2019). Metaviz: Forest plots, funnel plots, and visual funnel plot inference for meta-analysis (R package Version 0.3.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metaviz
13.
KrijnenJ. M.ZeelenbergM.BreugelmansS. M.van PuttenM. (2019). Inaction inertia in retirement saving. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2145
14.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.
15.
LakensD.EtzA. J. (2017). Too true to be bad: When sets of studies with significant and nonsignificant findings are probably true. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 875–881.
16.
LeBelE. P.McCarthyR. J.EarpB. D.ElsonM.VanpaemelW. (2018). A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 389–402.
17.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 433–442.
18.
MunafòM. R.NosekB. A.BishopD. V.ButtonK. S.ChambersC. D.du SertN. P.SimonsohnU.WagenmakersE.-J.WareJ. J.IoannidisJ. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 1–9.
19.
NosekB. A.LakensD. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 137–141.
20.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.
PittmanT. A.TykocinskiO. E.KeinanR. S.MatthewsP. A. (2007). When bonuses backfire: An inaction inertia analysis of procrastination induced by a missed opportunity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 139–150.
23.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
24.
SevdalisN.HarveyN.YipM. (2006). Regret triggers inaction inertia—But which regret and how?British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 839–853.
25.
ShaniY.DanzigerS.ZeelenbergM. (2015). Choosing between options associated with past and future regret. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 107–114.
TerrisL. G.TykocinskiO. E. (2016). Inaction inertia in international negotiations: The consequences of missed opportunities. British Journal of Political Science, 46, 701–717.
28.
TykocinskiO. E.PittmanT. S. (1998). The consequences of doing nothing: Inaction inertia as avoidance of anticipated counterfactual regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 607–616.
29.
TykocinskiO. E.PittmanT. S. (2001). Product aversion following a missed opportunity: Price contrast or avoidance of anticipated regret?Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 149–156.
30.
TykocinskiO. E.PittmanT. S.TuttleE. E. (1995). Inaction inertia: Foregoing future benefits as a result of an initial failure to act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 793–803.
31.
VosgerauJ.SimonsohnU.NelsonL. D.SimmonsJ. P. (2019). 99% impossible: A valid, or falsifiable, internal meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1628–1639.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
