Recommending Action More Than Inaction When Either Decision Fails: Which Norm Underlies This Process?

Abstract

Norm theorists' assumption that action is abnormal compared with inaction was revisited. Two experiments tested the opposite prediction, that action is construed as the descriptive norm and therefore is less mutable than inaction and should be more recommended for undoing a negative outcome. Participants both undid a person's negative outcome by recommending an alternative decision and rated the intensity of regret he or she was likely to feel. The focal outcomes were categorized as resulting from a conjunction of 4 decisions, including action, inaction, or a combination of both. An abnormality index was constructed based on the distance between the decision implemented and the decision recommended. Overall, action was most frequently recommended as an alternative to most of the other decisions. Mixed action-inaction instead of inaction was highly recommended as an alternative when action failed (Experiment 1), but when explicitly presented as the descriptive norm, inaction was highly recommended as an alternative to action (Experiment 2). The numeric distance between action and the recommended alternatives was shorter than that between inaction and its alternatives, suggesting that the former is normal. However, the actor was expected to experience regret of equal intensity regardless of how the outcome originated. The recommendation responses support the descriptive norm perspective.