Doctor of Philosophy, University of Toledo, 2009, Psychology

“Decision making inertia” is a term loosely used to describe the similar nature of a variety of decision making biases that predominantly favor a decision to maintain one course of action over switching to a new course. Three of these biases, the sunk cost effect, status-quo bias, and inaction inertia are discussed here. Combining earlier work on strength of handedness and the sunk cost effect along with new findings regarding counterfactual thought, this work principally seeks to determine if counterfactual thought may drive the three decision biases of note while also analyzing common relationships between the biases, strength of handedness, and the variables of regret and loss aversion. Over a series of experiments, it was found that handedness differences did exist in the three biases discussed, that amount and type of counterfactuals generated did not predict choice within the status-quo bias, and that the remaining variables potentially thought to drive the biases presented did not link causally to them. This is important as it suggests that decision making inertia, if it does exist, is not tied to one common antecedent.

Committee: John D. Jasper PhD (Committee Chair); Stephen D. Christman PhD (Committee Member); Rickye E. Heffner PhD (Committee Member); Kamala L. London PhD (Committee Member); Michael E. Doherty PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Psychology