Preliminary Findings on Appointment Reschedule Fear
A preliminary investigation into the reluctance to reschedule an appointment one does not want to attend, despite having a valid reason and the administrative tools to do so.
Preliminary Findings on Appointment Reschedule Fear Administrative Behavior Research Unit August 2021
These findings address a behavior documented consistently across the household: the retention of scheduled appointments that the subject does not wish to attend, despite possessing both a valid reason to reschedule and the administrative capacity to do so.
Background
The subject has an appointment. The appointment was scheduled at a time when it seemed manageable. That time has passed. The appointment now falls at a moment of particular inconvenience, or the subject has developed a mild but persistent reluctance to attend, or both. A reschedule option is available. The office's stated policy permits rescheduling with notice. The phone number is in the subject's possession. The reschedule has not occurred.
The Core Finding
The research unit finds that the reschedule has not occurred not because rescheduling is difficult but because initiating the reschedule requires a telephone call, and the telephone call requires the subject to state a reason, and the reason is either incomplete ("I just don't want to go as much as I did when I made the appointment") or embellished to the point where the subject must maintain the embellishment for the duration of the call.
Neither option is comfortable. The appointment remains on the calendar.
Three Consequences
First, the appointment occupies mental space beyond its scheduled duration. It appears in the subject's awareness several days in advance, during which it generates a low-grade anticipatory discomfort that is arguably more costly than the appointment itself would be.
Second, the closer the appointment comes, the higher the perceived cost of rescheduling, because rescheduling on short notice is described by the office as "late notice" and carries a social weight the subject prefers to avoid. The delay created by inaction increases the cost of action, which further reduces the likelihood of action. This is the mechanism by which the appointment remains.
Third, a rescheduled appointment requires a new appointment, which will appear on the calendar and generate the same sequence of events at a later date. The subject understands this. The subject reschedules anyway, when they finally do, because attending the appointment at the original time has become untenable and the future is not the present.
The Governing Rule
Appointments that are easy to make are not correspondingly easy to undo. The asymmetry is structural. Booking is asynchronous and low-pressure. Canceling is synchronous, interactive, and requires explanation.
Contradiction
The appointment is with a professional who reschedules appointments routinely and has no particular emotional investment in the subject's attendance. The subject's reluctance to call is not proportionate to the call's actual stakes. The research unit notes this without recommending a course of action, as recommending courses of action is outside the unit's scope.
Final findings will be issued following the appointment or its rescheduled equivalent.