Inaction Inertia

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................2

1.  Introduction 3  

2.  Methods of the experiment 3  

2.1  Participants and design 3  

2.2  Procedure and measures 4  

3.  Results of the experiment 4  

4.  Flaws of the Experiment 5  

5.  Conclusion 6  

  References  6

  2  

1. Introduction

The inaction inertia effect was first introduced by Tykocinski, Pittmann, and Tuttle and is described as the phenomenon that “forgoing an attractive action opportunity (initial inaction) decreases the likelihood that subsequent action will be taken in the same domain [inertia]” (Tykocinski/Pittmann, 1998, p. 607). In that sense, inaction inertia implies that when missing an appealing offer, a less attractive but still desirable deal is likely to be forfeited. Research shows that this effect is applicable to all sorts of different goods or services (automobile purchases, renting apartments, ski passes, etcetera). The effect is even more prominent when the difference between the initial and the second opportunity is quite large (see Zeelenberg et al., 2006, p. 90). As for the question why such behavior is shown by many people, various different explanations can be found in previously published literature. First, regret is seen as a major influencing factor because it is considered a loss (see Zeelenberg et al., 2006, p. 90). Second, the devaluation of the later offer is seen as the cause of inaction inertia because the initial offer seems to work as an anchor against which the current offer is evaluated (see Zeelenberg et al., 2006, p. 98). Some evidence was found for both approaches but further research needs to be done.

In order to find out more about the inaction inertia effect, a small experiment was conducted. The general underlying hypothesis was: When individuals miss an initial offer on offer A, they should be less likely to take offer A or B when the cost increases significantly. Adapted to our experiment our hypothesis was that people that did not miss the prize they really wanted would choose the prize that is more valuable, which, in our case, was the chess set.

2. Methods of the experiment

2.1 Participants and design

A sample of forty-one students (17 male, 24 female) at the University of Konstanz volunteered to participate in this study. They were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions/ independent variables (T-shirt not offered, T-shirt offered but not available as a prize), of the two complete factorial design (between subjects), with twenty participants in one and twenty-one in the other condition. The condition-one group consisted of nine males and eleven females, the condition-two group of eight male and thirteen female participants. In

3