IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v81y2020ics0167487020300878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of option generation on post-decisional regret in everyday life decision-making: A field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Mojzisch, Andreas
  • Häusser, Jan Alexander
  • Leder, Johannes

Abstract

While previous studies on post-decisional regret have exclusively focused on externally provided options, the present study is the first to examine post-decisional regret in situations with self-generated options. Applying a metacognitive perspective, we predicted that a large option set-size leads to less post-decisional regret than a small option set-size. This hypothesis is in contrast to the classic choice overload effect which has been reported for externally provided options. Furthermore, we hypothesized that explicitly generating options results in less post-decisional regret than not doing so. We used a field experimental design to test our two hypotheses. On a Sunday morning, participants were asked to generate either three or six options for what they could do during the afternoon and to select one of these options. In a control condition, participants were not instructed to generate options. On Sunday evening, participants indicated how much they regretted not having done something else. Our results provide support for both hypotheses.

Suggested Citation

  • Mojzisch, Andreas & Häusser, Jan Alexander & Leder, Johannes, 2020. "The effects of option generation on post-decisional regret in everyday life decision-making: A field experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:81:y:2020:i:c:s0167487020300878
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2020.102326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487020300878
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102326?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klein, Gary & Wolf, Steve & Militello, Laura & Zsambok, Caroline, 1995. "Characteristics of Skilled Option Generation in Chess," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 63-69, April.
    2. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    3. Mannetti, Lucia & Pierro, Antonio & Kruglanski, Arie, 2007. "Who regrets more after choosing a non-status-quo option? Post decisional regret under need for cognitive closure," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 186-196, April.
    4. Betsch, Cornelia, 2004. "Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID) : Inventar zur Erfassung von affekt- und kognitionsbasiertem Entscheiden," Papers 04-19, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    5. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    6. 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.
    7. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, February.
    8. Arkes, Hal R. & Kung, Yi-Han & Hutzel, Laura, 2002. "Regret, Valuation, and Inaction Inertia," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 371-385, March.
    9. Johnson, Joseph G. & Raab, Markus, 2003. "Take The First: Option-generation and resulting choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 215-229, July.
    10. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giorgetta, Cinzia & Zeelenberg, Marcel & Ferlazzo, Fabio & D’Olimpio, Francesca, 2012. "Cultural variation in the role of responsibility in regret and disappointment: The Italian case," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 726-737.
    2. 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.
    3. van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop, 1997. "The Impact of Probability and Magnitude of Outcome on Disappointment and Elation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 277-284, March.
    4. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    5. Patricia H. Born & E. Tice Sirmans, 2019. "Regret in health insurance post‐purchase behavior," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 207-219, July.
    6. Servaas van Bilsen & Roger J. A. Laeven & Theo E. Nijman, 2020. "Consumption and Portfolio Choice Under Loss Aversion and Endogenous Updating of the Reference Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3927-3955, September.
    7. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2023. "Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 467-501, April.
    8. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & Manstead, A.S.R., 1998. "Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility," Other publications TiSEM fa17bcac-aab0-4f37-8183-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Chi, Yichun & Zhuang, Sheng Chao, 2022. "Regret-based optimal insurance design," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 22-41.
    10. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    11. Lisheng He & Pantelis P. Analytis & Sudeep Bhatia, 2022. "The Wisdom of Model Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3635-3659, May.
    12. Jiakun Zheng, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Post-Print hal-04227370, HAL.
    13. Zheng, Jiakun, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 596-607.
    14. Florian Teleaba & Sorin Popescu & Marieta Olaru & Diana Pitic, 2021. "Risks of Observable and Unobservable Biases in Artificial Intelligence Predicting Consumer Choice," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 23(56), pages 102-102, February.
    15. Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans & Elena Katok, 2008. "Regret and Feedback Information in First-Price Sealed-Bid Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 808-819, April.
    16. van Dijk, W.W. & van der Pligt, J. & Zeelenberg, M., 1999. "Effort invested in vain : The impact of effort on the intensity of disappointment and regret," Other publications TiSEM 4746cce1-ce4d-4fea-b3c4-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2009. "Dynamic psychological games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 1-35, January.
    18. Christian Knoller, 2016. "MULTIPLE REFERENCE POINTS AND THE DEMAND FOR PRINCIPAL-PROTECTED LIFE ANNUITIES: An EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 163-179, January.
    19. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 189-211, December.
    20. Ronald Eastburn, 2018. "Realising Value from Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-26, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:81:y:2020:i:c:s0167487020300878. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.