Purpose Extensive research has shown that reversible decisions yield lower post-decision satisfaction than irreversible decisions. However, to date, little is known about how decision reversibility affects post-decision satisfaction. Based on regret theory, this study aimed to examine the mediating role of counterfactual thinking and anticipated regret in the association between decision reversibility and satisfaction. Methods In this study (130 participants), participants were randomly assigned to two personnel decision situations with reversible and irreversible decision outcomes, and all participants completed questionnaires during the process of completing the decision task. The questionnaires used included the Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale, Anticipated Regret Scale, and satisfaction questionnaire. Finally, the data were statistically analyzed using the base package in R and PROCESS 3.5. Results The results show that (1) Compared to irreversible decisions, reversible decisions have a significant negative impact on satisfaction. (2) Counterfactual thinking plays a mediating role between decision reversibility and satisfaction. (3) Compared with irreversible decisions, reversible decisions further lowered the level of post-decision satisfaction through the chain mediating effects of counterfactual thinking and anticipated regret. Conclusion People’s lowered levels of post-decision satisfaction in the reversible decision condition relate to increased levels of counterfactual thinking and anticipated regret. In addition, counterfactual thinking can play a mediating role alone, indicating that this variable may be critical in understanding the mechanisms by which decision reversibility affects satisfaction. This knowledge may be used to help people optimize their decision-making behavior.

Purpose Previous studies on consumer decision strategies have focused on the process or outcomes of decision-making using different decision strategies. Relatively little is known about the factors (especially decision makers’ characteristics) influencing the use of different decision strategies. This study examined the effects of power on consumer decision strategies and the underlying mechanisms. Methods Studies 1 (N = 128) and 2 (N = 130) examined multiple- and binary-option situations, respectively. Participants’ power was manipulated with a writing task and their consumer decision strategies were assessed through the selection tasks of restaurants and beach resorts. Study 3 (N = 326) further explored the mediator of approach-inhibition tendency and the moderator of gender in the relationship between power and consumer decision strategies. Participants’ chronic sense of power, approach-inhibition tendency, and purchasing strategies were measured using questionnaires. Results Powerful (vs powerless) individuals prefer to use a direct selection (vs exclusion) strategy, regardless of whether they face multiple or binary choices. An increased approach (vs inhibition) tendency explains why elevated power promotes the use of the direct selection strategy. Moreover, gender plays a moderating role. Specifically, the mediation effect of approach (vs inhibition) tendency on the relationship between power and the preference for the direct selection (vs exclusion) strategy is stronger for males than for females. Conclusion This study extends previous research on power and consumer decision strategies by clarifying that the effects of power on consumer decision strategies are primarily driven by high power (but not by low power). Furthermore, by examining the mediator of approach-inhibition tendency and the moderator of gender, this study promotes a deeper understanding of how power affects consumer decision strategies and for whom the effect is more salient. Besides, the present research has contributions to the approach-inhibition theory of power and the literature on gender differences in consumer behavior, and has practical implications for business marketing.