Inaction Inertia Effect: Foregoing Opportunities as a Consequence of an Initial Failure to Act – a Replication-Extension Study in the Brazilian Population

Abstract

The inaction inertia effect is a cognitive bias in which forgoing an attractive opportunity reduces the likelihood of accepting a subsequent, less attractive opportunity. This phenomenon was originally demonstrated by Tyckocinski et al. (1995), and the present study aimed to replicate their findings and assess the effect in a Brazilian population. We used an online survey with a translated version of the original questionnaire, as well as an extension scenario. The final sample included 436 participants. We performed statistical analyses using the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test, comparing three conditions ("Small-Difference", "Large-Difference", and "Control") for the four original scenarios and one extension scenario. We also stratified the scenarios into two categories for a second extension investigation: those involving money (Hotel and Car) and those that did not (Frequent flyer and Fitness center), evaluated via linear mixed-effect analyses. We found evidence of the inaction inertia effect in 6 of the 12 comparisons between conditions conducted in the four original scenarios, showing evidence of its existence in this Brazilian sample. All scenarios presented significant differences between conditions (p-values < 0.001; 𝜀² ranging from 0.06 to 0.22), except for the Frequent flyer scenario (p-value = 0.073; 𝜀² = 0.01). We also observed support for the Inaction Inertia Effect in the extension scenario, which shows further evidence of its existence in our sample (p-value = 0.002; 𝜀² = 0.03). Moreover, we found that money was a significant factor in participants' decision-making (p-value < 0.001), suggesting that different decision-making processes are involved when monetary decisions are at stake. This replication-extension study provides evidence of the inaction inertia effect in the Brazilian population, indicating that time passage and cultural differences may not significantly affect this cognitive bias, initially described almost 30 years ago. Materials, data, and code were made available on https://osf.io/62nxb/

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.