The Psychology of Inaction and Personality

Baltas Group

You see a message. Perhaps instead of replying straight away you need some time to think, perhaps you want more information, or perhaps you have not yet decided whether you should reply at all. Meanwhile, the message remains unanswered. At first glance, nothing concrete has been done. The message has not been answered and no step has been taken. So you might tell yourself, “I haven’t done anything yet.”

But have you really done nothing? There may not have been a choice; yet this absence of choice has also produced an outcome at the behavioural level: no action has been taken.

Similarly, not starting a project immediately, observing a problem before raising it, waiting for the right moment for a difficult conversation, not intervening straight away in a variable in a process, or saying “let’s leave it as it is for now” all produce the same short-term result from the outside: the current situation continues. However, the same behavioural outcome can arise from very different reasons. Sometimes a person does not act because they are undecided, hesitant or procrastinating; at other times they do not act in order to think, gather information, monitor conditions or deliberately refrain from intervening.

Inertia, inaction, choice and action

Inaction often brings to mind the concept of “inertia” in its everyday sense. However, inertia in this sense, associated with laziness, idleness or sluggishness, invites us to see not acting as negative from the outset. Yet these are not always the reasons why a person does not take action. Personality traits, the conditions a person is in and the psychological mechanisms involved in the decision process can influence in different ways whether a person stays in the current situation or takes action. For this reason, in this article we will use “inaction” as a more inclusive term that carries no prior judgement about why someone does not act, staying closer to the concept of inertia in physics, where it describes the same outcome under different conditions: the preservation of the current state of motion.

To do this, we will first focus on an important distinction between choice and action. Accordingly, choice relates to the process of deciding between alternatives, while action relates to behaviour:

Choice + action: The person chooses one of the alternatives and acts in line with that choice. In this case, for example, a manager says, “I am going to change the process.” When decisions involving action turn out badly, they create a stronger feeling of regret than inaction does.¹
Choice + no action: Inaction is the result of a decision that has been made. This time the manager says, “I am not going to intervene in the process.” The person evaluates the alternatives and deliberately adopts not intervening, staying inactive, as their preference.¹
No choice + no action: Here inaction is not a choice but the behavioural result of not choosing. In this case the manager says, “I can’t decide yet what to do.” This may stem from uncertain preferences, the difficulty of the choice or the aim of avoiding negative emotions.¹
No choice + action: The person acts without forming a clear preference or finalising their decision. The behaviour may be automatic, habitual, impulsive or triggered by circumstances. In this case the manager continues the usual practice without making a conscious choice about what to do. When individuals do not perceive any threat or risk, they may continue their current behaviour without systematically evaluating alternatives or, in line with the principle of “conserving energy”, automatically continue the current action because they do not notice that there is an opportunity or need to make a decision.¹

Causality and individual differences in inaction

Baron and Ritov’s study shows that people can make different judgements when evaluating the consequences of action and inaction, and that these evaluations can also be influenced by the perception of direct or indirect causality between the outcome and the person.² In the study, a case where the intervention itself (for example, a severe side effect caused by a vaccine) directly leads to death or harm was classified as direct causality, while a case where the mechanism producing the harm is not the action or drug applied but the natural disease itself was classified as indirect causality. The researchers addressed indirect causality through two different scenarios:

Omission / inaction: The patient is harmed by the natural disease because no treatment was given.
Failed treatment (action): A drug or vaccine is given, but because the intervention is not fully effective, the patient is still harmed by the natural disease.

In evaluating the options, whether the case of indirect causality involved inaction or a failed action did not make a significant difference; in both cases participants mainly avoided the action that directly caused harm. This finding showed experimentally that actions with indirect causality are perceived mentally in the same way as inaction.

When the individuals who decided in favour of inaction were examined in depth, it emerged that different mental shortcuts and emotional processes lay behind this tendency. Some of those who chose inaction based their decision on a strict rule of not causing harm, learned from childhood, while others took refuge in inaction because of the emotional sensitivities and intuitive moral attitudes that accompanied the decision. The preference for inaction is therefore diverse in itself, and it raises the question of what role enduring tendencies that vary from person to person play in this process.

The role of personality in inaction

The psychological processes that lead people to inaction are not the same. Some of us stay still so as not to make mistakes, some of us behave more avoidantly in the face of uncertainty and possible losses, and some of us feel intense anxiety under decision conflict and put off taking action. In other words, very different psychological processes can lie behind “doing nothing”.

In this section we will look at how three seemingly different personality traits — perfectionism, risk aversion and low composure — can contribute to a similar behavioural outcome: inaction.

Perfectionism: when the search for flawlessness makes action harder

For perfectionists, making a decision means not only making a choice but making the right choice. What we are talking about here is not situational pressure but an enduring standard the person holds for themselves. In Hewitt and Flett’s multidimensional model of perfectionism, this tendency is defined as “self-oriented perfectionism”: the person experiences being perfect not as pressure from outside but as their own internal standard.³

Slade and Owens’ dual process model suggests that perfectionism can be associated with different processes, some directed towards positive outcomes and others based on avoiding negative outcomes. While some people are driven to act by the motivation to reach high standards, others may turn to avoidance and procrastination out of fear of mistakes and failure.⁴ What feeds inaction, therefore, is not so much high standards themselves as the combination of these standards with the need to avoid mistakes and find the flawless option. Meanwhile, the person may explain their inaction with rational reasons such as gathering more information, waiting for conditions to become clearer or waiting for the right moment. However, when this waiting starts to delay action rather than improve the quality of the decision, perfectionism turns into a mechanism that feeds inaction. Yet for many decisions there is no flawless option. Making a decision is often about identifying the option that is good enough given the information available and being ready to manage its consequences.

Risk aversion: when possible losses make action harder

Another important motivation behind inaction is risk perception. Especially when uncertainty is high, people who are more risk-averse may focus more on the possible consequences of acting than on the consequences of not acting.

“This decision could create an unexpected cost.”
“Is the return worth taking this risk?”
“If the current situation is working, is there any need to take on this uncertainty?”

These thoughts reflect a person’s tendency to weigh possible outcomes in the face of uncertainty, avoid unnecessary risks and act cautiously. However, a risk that is small at the start can turn into a bigger risk because of inaction. As time passes, the problem may change, the opportunity may disappear, costs may rise and alternatives may shrink. The real dilemma of a decision is therefore not always “Take a risk or not take a risk?” Sometimes the real question is: “Should I take a manageable risk now, or accept another risk that may grow over time?” From this perspective, inaction may mean not that the risk disappears but that it is postponed, changes form or becomes less visible at first.

Low composure: when anxiety makes action harder

People with low emotional adjustment, because they tend to experience negative emotions more intensely and find it harder to cope with them, may experience difficult decisions as a more intense source of stress. Although this does not always lead to inaction, it can lay the groundwork for processes that make it harder to take action when decision conflict increases. Research shows that people high in neuroticism may be more avoidant of uncertain and ambiguous situations and may focus more on possible negative outcomes.⁵ This general effect of emotional adjustment can show itself more concretely in the sub-dimension of composure, which relates to reactions under stress. Individuals with low composure may experience more intense emotional reactions to pressure, threat and uncertainty; their difficulty in staying calm, especially when anxiety and worry rise, can strengthen the tendency to delay decisions or avoid taking action.

In a study by Ireland and colleagues with 3,827 university students from 19 countries, it was found that as neuroticism increased, people’s attitudes towards action became more negative and their attitudes towards inaction more positive. The study also showed that anxiety played an important role in the relationship between neuroticism and more negative attitudes towards action.⁶ Although this study was not conducted directly in working life, it is important in showing how anxiety can play a role in evaluations of action and inaction, and the importance of managing anxiety.

When we consider this relationship in terms of change processes in working life, the study by Saksvik and Hetland offers a more direct link. In the study, conducted with 259 participants, a positive relationship was found between neuroticism and resistance to change. Neuroticism was also positively related to the routine seeking, emotional reaction and short-term thinking dimensions of resistance to change.⁷ The finding on “emotional reaction to change” in particular is striking for the composure trait we are discussing here. Imagine that a new practice needs to be introduced at work. An employee who struggles to stay calm in the face of the uncertainty and possible problems that change brings may experience more intense anxiety and stress. As this emotional load increases, taking the step that change requires can become harder; the employee may lean towards continuing the current method or delaying the transition. Behaviour that looks from the outside like simply “not taking action” may therefore, in some cases, be related to difficulty in managing the emotional reactions triggered by change. Rather than explaining inaction only by unwillingness or low motivation, it is therefore necessary to take into account the personal characteristics behind the behaviour and the conditions the person is in.

From personality to decision: the psychological processes that shape inaction

These tendencies towards inaction, fed by different sources in terms of personality, are also reflected in the psychology of decision-making. Decision conflict and behavioural inhibition approaches explain how processes associated with inaction, such as prolonged evaluation, avoidance, procrastination or the suppression of behaviour, can emerge in response to different triggers.

Janis and Mann’s conflict model of decision-making suggests that people can develop different ways of coping in difficult decision situations. These include systematic and careful evaluation (vigilance), intense and scattered information seeking (hypervigilance) and defensive avoidance, in which the person leans towards preserving the current situation or postponing the decision.⁸

As time runs short and the fear of making mistakes grows, a person may sometimes, instead of taking action, start evaluating the options again and again, recalculating the risks and waiting for more suitable conditions to arise. In this way, while the time available for the decision shrinks, the cost of inaction can grow.

What matters here is that inaction under pressure does not always mean “not being able to think at all”. Sometimes, on the contrary, over-evaluating the options and focusing too much on the threat the decision may bring can also make it harder to act.

The need to reduce uncertainty and reach certainty can also play a role in decision processes. Kruglanski and Webster’s work on the need for cognitive closure shows that people’s motivation in this direction can influence the way they make decisions.⁹ However, it should be remembered that this need does not always lead to avoidance; depending on the conditions and the coping style a person uses, it can also show up as moving towards a quick decision or managing the decision process in different ways.

At this point, Gray’s Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) can offer another useful explanatory framework. In Gray’s model, the BIS is associated with the temporary inhibition of behaviour, the direction of attention towards possible threats and a more careful evaluation of the available options, particularly in situations involving threat, uncertainty and conflict.¹⁰

Taken together, these approaches show that understanding what makes it difficult to take action requires focusing not only on what the person does but also on which psychological mechanisms are at work in the decision process.

The cost of inaction in working life

One of the most visible consequences of inaction is the cost that emerges over time, independently of the decision itself.

Imagine a manager who keeps postponing a feedback conversation with an employee who has a performance problem. At first glance, the manager is simply avoiding a difficult conversation. But as time passes, the performance problem may affect other employees, the workload within the team may become unbalanced and the problem may become harder to solve.

Similarly, failing to intervene in a process problem in an organisation despite having noticed it also creates an outcome: the existing problem persists and may lead to bigger problems over time.

When assessing the cost of a decision in working life, it is therefore not enough to ask only, “What happens if I make this decision?” The question “What happens if I don’t make this decision?” is just as important.

The cost of inaction rarely appears all at once. A small delay can turn into another delay, a postponed conversation into a bigger conflict, and a small problem left unaddressed into a more costly one.

Breaking the cycle

Although a common behavioural outcome may emerge, the triggers of inaction differ, so the way to intervene also varies from person to person. Personality science helps us understand the individual dynamics behind observed inaction. It makes it possible to distinguish the different paths that lead to the same behavioural outcome and to tailor the conditions that support taking action to each person.

For someone with perfectionist tendencies, it can be helpful to define the “good enough” threshold in advance, at a moment when emotional pressure is lower. The question “Does this decision need to be flawless, or is good enough sufficient?” can bring the standard of perfection to a more realistic level.

For someone with a tendency towards risk aversion, it is important to make visible that not only acting but also waiting has a cost. Adding the question “What could I lose if I wait?” alongside “What could I lose if I act?” can make the risk assessment more balanced.

For someone who struggles to manage the stress created by the decision process, reducing the scope of the decision can help. Asking “What is the one small step I can take right now?” instead of “Do I have to solve the whole problem now?” can make it easier to act by reducing the emotional and cognitive load the decision creates.

What these three approaches have in common is that they treat inaction not as a lack of willpower but as an understandable behavioural response to a particular trigger. Personality traits come into play in understanding which situations become stronger triggers for a person and under which conditions inaction may emerge. Such a perspective helps a person notice the mechanism underlying the behaviour, rather than blaming themselves, and find the point at which they can intervene. The Personova Personality Inventory helps make these individual dynamics visible.

Conclusion

Although inaction may look from the outside like simply “not doing something”, it can involve different decision processes and psychological dynamics. Getting to know personality makes the invisible visible and supports identifying person-specific ways that make it easier to take action.

Rather than explaining an employee’s inaction only by unwillingness, avoidance of responsibility or low motivation, trying to understand the personal tendencies and conditions behind this behaviour is an important part of a people-centred approach. The same inaction may stem from fear of making mistakes for one employee, from the cost of uncertainty for another and from being caught between conflicting expectations for yet another. Rather than simply reacting to visible behaviour, a people-centred leader focuses on understanding the dynamic that keeps the person still and on helping them create the room for action they need.

Sources:

Anderson CJ. The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(1):139–67.
Baron J, Ritov I. Omission bias, individual differences, and normality. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2004;94(2):74–85.
Hewitt PL, Flett GL. Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60(3):456–70.
Slade PD, Owens RG. A dual process model of perfectionism based on reinforcement theory. Behav Modif. 1998;22(3):372–90.
Lommen MJJ, Engelhard IM, van den Hout MA. Neuroticism and avoidance of ambiguous stimuli: better safe than sorry. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;49(8):1001–6.
Ireland ME, Hepler J, Li H, Albarracín D. Neuroticism and attitudes toward action in 19 countries. J Pers. 2015;83(3):243–50. doi:10.1111/jopy.12099.
Saksvik IB, Hetland H. Exploring dispositional resistance to change. J Leadersh Organ Stud. 2009;16(2):175–83. doi:10.1177/1548051809335357.
Janis IL, Mann L. Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press; 1977.
Kruglanski AW, Webster DM. Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing”. Psychol Rev. 1996;103(2):263–83.
Gray JA, McNaughton N. The neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.