Action, Inaction, and Dissonance Reduction Gilovich et al. (1995) Gilovich et al. (1995) conducted a study to show that dissonance reduction is higher after action, or errors of commission, than after inaction, or errors of omission. Demonstrating this effect would bolster the claim that pain of regret from action decreases over time, as postulated by Gilovich and Medvec (1995).regretGilovich and Medvec (1995). Contributor© POSbase 2004

The authors used a version of the “Monty Hall” problem. Participants could win a modest price (Cornell bumper sticker) or the grand prize (an expensive Cornell T-shirt).“Monty Hall” problem A fellow student, who actually was a confederate to the experimenter, exerted subtle influence in order to let the participant choose the wrong door. Half of the participants got the modest price when they stayed, the other half when they switched the door. For participants in a control condition, the choice was determined randomly, i.e. they did not have a choice at all. Action, Inaction, and Dissonance Reduction © POSbase 2004

The results were straightforward: Switch:1.58$ Stay:1.11$ Control:0.78$ Action, Inaction, and Dissonance Reduction After the participants got the modest price, they were asked how much the experimenter would have to offer them in order to get them to sell back the bumper sticker. © POSbase 2004

Action, Inaction, and Dissonance Reduction © POSbase 2004 Participants set a higher price to sell back the bumper sticker when they acted and hence committed an error of commission than when they failed to act and hence committed an error of omission. This supports the notion that people reduce dissonance more for actions than for inactions, resulting in a steeper decrease of regret over action than over inaction (see Gilovich & Medvec, 1995).regretGilovich & Medvec, 1995