Inaction Traps in Consumer Response to Product Malfunctions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors develop and test a theory of consumer inaction traps in the domain of decisions to either address or endure product malfunctions. According to this theory, the magnitude of product malfunctions can have a paradoxical effect on consumption experience. In particular, the less severe a product malfunction is, the more inclined consumers are to defer the initial decision about whether to take corrective action. Subsequent opportunities for corrective action are devalued relative to previously forgone ones. This dynamic tends to trap consumers in a state of inaction, resulting in their enduring smaller malfunctions longer than larger ones. A consequence of these inaction traps is that minor product malfunctions may result in less enjoyable overall consumption experiences than more severe defects. Evidence from eight experiments and a survey provides support for this theorizing by demonstrating the inaction-trap phenomenon, examining its downstream consequences, shedding light on the psychological dynamics of inaction, and identifying boundary conditions that suggest interventions for counteracting consumers’ vulnerability to suffering disproportionately from relatively minor product malfunctions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.107 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".