Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret Effects on Post-Choice Valuation

Contents:

Author Info

  • J. Jeffrey Inman

    (School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 975 University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53706)

  • James S. Dyer

    (University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712)

  • Jianmin Jia

    (Chinese University of Hong Kong)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    In this paper we show that performance information about “forgone” alternatives (i.e., alternative that were considered but not chosen) can have a significant impact on post-choice valuation. Our approach introduces a new and parsimonious way of looking at satisfaction that combines the literature on post-choice valuation with research regarding generalized expected utility theory. While the post-valuation literature focuses on the selected brand as the valuation's basis (e.g., Anderson and Sullivan [Anderson, E. W., M. W. Sullivan. 1993. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. (Spring) 125–143.], Bolton and Drew [Bolton, R., J. Drew. 1991. A multistage model of customers' assessments of service quality and value. 375–384.]), we draw on a stream of research in generalized expected utility theory that considers both chosen and forgone alternatives as the basis for valuation (e.g., Bell [Bell, D. 1983. Risk premiums for decision regret. 1156–1166 and Bell, D. 1985. Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. 1–27.]; Loomes and Sugden [Loomes, G., R. Sugden. 1982. Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. 805–824 and Loomes, G., R. Sugden. 1986. Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. 271–282.]). The result is a combined model of post-choice valuation that explicitly incorporates both concepts. Specifically, we extend the existing paradigm of post-choice valuation to include buyers' regret concerning forgone alternatives, proposing a generalized utility theory-based treatment of post-choice product assessment that uses the intuitively appealing concepts of disappointment and regret as the basis. We propose a model for conceptualizing post-choice valuation that is consistent with the existing literature, discuss how this model extends the construct to consider the influence of forgone alternatives, and report results of an empirical test that contrasts our model to important recent work in the area (e.g., Boulding et al. [Boulding, W., A. Kalra, R. Staelin, V. A. Zeithaml. 1993. A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. (February) 7–27.]). Our generalized model of post-choice valuation is based on the sum of three components that represent factors that may contribute to consumers' assessment of a chosen product or service. The first component is expected performance. The second component is disappointment, which captures the discrepancy between actual and expected performance (much as the disconfirmation construct in traditional satisfaction research). The third component is regret, which captures the difference between the performance of the chosen product/service and the performance of a forgone product/service. This perspective is useful in that risk is captured by the disappointment and regret terms, providing an intuitively appealing decomposition of post-choice valuation and offering several advances over previous representations of disappointment and regret. We test our model via a choice experiment. Participants in the empirical study were asked to make choices between successive lottery pairs. They were then given outcome feedback on the forgone alternative as well as on the chosen alternative in each lottery pair. Immediately following outcome feedback for each choice, subjects were asked to evaluate their decision. Our results clearly suggest an effect of regret on post-choice valuation—information about the forgone alternative influenced subjects' valuation of the chosen alternative. We also find evidence that, as predicted, the effects of disappointment and regret on post-choice valuation are asymmetric. Specifically, the negative effect of disappointment on post-choice valuation was greater than the positive effect of elation. Similarly, the negative effect of regret was greater than the positive impact of rejoicing. Our research offers five contributions to the literature on post-choice valuation. First, our results illustrate the advantage of using generalized utility theory as the basis for conceptualizing and modeling post-choice valuation. We derive a model of post-choice valuation that formally captures the components of disappointment and regret and show that the outcome of both the chosen alternative (through disappointment) and a forgone alternative (through regret) can influence the chosen alternative's valuation. Second, we formally integrate the concepts of disappointment and regret, which have been examined separately for many years, into a single model based on a multiattribute preference structure. Third, we argue that the effects of disappointment and regret on post-choice valuation are asymmetric and present empirical evidence in this regard. Fourth, our results suggest that word-of-mouth regarding forgone alternatives may affect post-choice valuation, extending research that has not heretofore considered forgone outcomes' role in this process. Finally, our development provides a preconsumption measure of “potential disappointment and regret” in modeling choice. At the time of choice, consumers may visualize the feelings of disappointment and/or regret that will be derived at consumption, taking into account both the chosen brand and forgone brands. Our generalized utility theory-based approach to the post-choice valuation construct can be useful in examining the role of disappointment and regret as preconsumption constructs.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.16.2.97
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.

    Volume (Year): 16 (1997)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 97-111

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:16:y:1997:i:2:p:97-111

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA
    Phone: +1-443-757-3500
    Fax: 443-757-3515
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.informs.org/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: buyer behavior; utility theory; disappointment; regret; post-choice valuation; satisfaction;

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Krähmer, Daniel & Stone, Rebecca, 2005. "Regret in Dynamic Decision Problems," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 71, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    2. Zeelenberg, Marcel & van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop & Manstead, Antony S. R. & van Empelen, Pepijn & Reinderman, Dimitri, 1998. "Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Decisions: The Role of Counterfactual Thought in the Experience of Regret and Disappointment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 117-141, August.
    3. Zeelenberg, Marcel & Pieters, Rik, 2004. "Consequences of regret aversion in real life: The case of the Dutch postcode lottery," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 155-168, March.
    4. Raeva, Daniela & Mittone, Luigi & Schwarzbach, Jens, 2010. "Regret now, take it now: On the role of experienced regret on intertemporal choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 634-642, August.
    5. Zeelenberg, Marcel & Pieters, Rik, 2004. "Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: A review and new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 445-455, April.
    6. Marcel Zeelenberg & Rob M. A. Nelissen & Seger M. Breugelmans & Rik Pieters, 2008. "On emotion specificity in decision making: why feeling is for doing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 18-27, January.
    7. Gül Özerol & Esra Karasakal, 2008. "A Parallel between Regret Theory and Outranking Methods for Multicriteria Decision Making Under Imprecise Information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 45-70, August.
    8. van Dijk, Eric & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2005. "On the psychology of `if only': Regret and the comparison between factual and counterfactual outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 152-160, July.
    9. Ratner, Rebecca K. & Herbst, Kenneth C., 2005. "When good decisions have bad outcomes: The impact of affect on switching behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 23-37, January.
    10. Keaveney, Susan M. & Huber, Frank & Herrmann, Andreas, 2007. "A model of buyer regret: Selected prepurchase and postpurchase antecedents with consequences for the brand and the channel," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(12), pages 1207-1215, December.
    11. van Dijk, Wilco W. & Zeelenberg, Marcel & van der Pligt, Joop, 2003. "Blessed are those who expect nothing: Lowering expectations as a way of avoiding disappointment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 505-516, August.
    12. Gürtler, Marc & Hartmann, Nora, 2003. "Behavioral dividend policy," Working Papers FW04V1, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institute of Finance.
    13. Hoelzl, Erik & Loewenstein, George, 2005. "Wearing out your shoes to prevent someone else from stepping into them: Anticipated regret and social takeover in sequential decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 15-27, September.
    14. Rong Chen & Jianmin Jia, 2012. "Regret and performance uncertainty in consumer repeat choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 353-365, March.
    15. Lin, Chien-Huang & Huang, Wen-Hsien & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2006. "Multiple reference points in investor regret," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 781-792, December.
    16. Delacroix, Eva, 2003. "Le regret chez le consommateur : un état de l’art," Economics Papers from University Paris Dauphine 123456789/4260, Paris Dauphine University.
    17. Zeelenberg, Marcel & Beattie, Jane, 1997. "Consequences of Regret Aversion 2: Additional Evidence for Effects of Feedback on Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 63-78, October.
    18. Wei Lim & Joo Lee-Partridge & Soo Tan, 2008. "Revenue implication of auction value in k-price sealed-bid auctions: An experimental study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 25-38, March.
    19. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Chorus, Caspar G. & Arentze, Theo A. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2008. "A Random Regret-Minimization model of travel choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-18, January.
    21. Zeelenberg, M. & Dijk, W.W. van & Pligt, J. van der & Manstead, A.S.R. & Empelen, P. van & Reinderman, D., 1998. "Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions: The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment," Discussion Paper 1998-35, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:16:y:1997:i:2:p:97-111. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.