Regret and Behavior: Comment on Zeelenberg and Pieters

Abstract

Zeelenberg and Pieter's (2007) regret regulation theory 1.0 offers a synthesis that brings together concepts spanning numerous literatures. We have no substantive disagreement with their theory, but instead offer 3 observations to further aid regret researchers studying consumer decision making. First, the overall arch of any regret theory must be situated within an understanding of behavior regulation. Second, the distinction between regrets of action versus inaction is best understood in terms of motivational implications, particularly with regard to Higgin's (1998) distinction between promotion and prevention focus. Third, the opportunity principle offers a particularly clear means of summarizing the regulatory consequences of the regret experience. Regret is an emotion pivotal for decision making, and its cognitive underpinning has and continues to be elucidated in research focusing on counterfactual thinking.In their regret regulation theory 1.0, Zeelenberg and Pieters (2007) offer a theoretical synthesis that brings together a range of concepts and findings spanning numerous literatures, all centering in one way or another on the construct of regret. Intriguingly, they label their theory version 1.0, thus acknowledging exciting prospects for future revision in light of the fervent research attention that the concept of regret continues to garner. Computer software is routinely labeled with such numbers, with whole versus decimal numbers signifying larger versus smaller revisions. The earliest hacker spirit of the 1960s emphasized a communal spirit, in which software code written (on paper!) on one particular day would be left in a file drawer for another programmer to improve upon the next day, a vivid embodiment of the core values of science itself (Levy, 2001). We hope that the ideas and suggestions contained in the present commentary are accepted in a similar collaboratory spirit.Zeelenberg and Pieters (2007) explicitly frame their theory as an integration of previously understood principles. They have done an admirable job of bringing together many diverse observations, and we applaud rather than dispute their main conclusions. Nevertheless, their synthesis involves substantial subjective interpretation, necessitated by the embryonic state of the literature. In the remainder of this commentary, we emphasize three theoretical points that our own subjective interpretation deems essential to an understanding of regret in its consumer decision-making context.

Consumer Guilt: A Model of Its Antecedents and Consequences

“…Respondents may have utilized defense mechanisms; it may be psychologically easier for people to report their regret feelings for inaction than action or than, for example, hedonic consumption. Alternatively, it can be suggested that respondents did indeed feel more guilt over indulging themselves in hedonic consumption, losing self-control and promotion failures (Roese et al 2007) than over the purchase of utilitarian products associated with a perception of lower consumer value.…”

“…This can equally stem from decisions to act or from decisions not to act Zeelenberg 2007, Roese et al 2007). Roese et al (2007) argue that regrets of action and inaction are different in terms of their motivational implications; regrets of action tend to center on avoidance and are related to prevention failures (e.g., not being able to avoid an undesirable product or situation), whereas regrets of inaction tend to center on approach and are related to promotion failures (e.g., not being able to approach a desired product or situation). Regret for the purchase of utilitarian products occurs associated with a perception of value, while regret of purchase of hedonic products cause guilt feeling associated with a perception of transgression, selfindulgence and self-control failure (Miao 2011).…”

The Feelings of Consumer Guilt: A Phenomenological Exploration

“…Regrets of inaction are found to be more likely to be activated when the individual has suffered a promotion failure, as suggested by Roese et al (2007). As explained by one informant, talking about his collage:…”

“…They manage stressful emotional experiences in purchase-related situations by means of problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping strategies In problem-focused coping, consumer tries to manage the source of a negative emotional experience and act on the threat to reduce or avoid it; in emotion-focused coping, consumer tries to manage the emotions experienced as a result of a stressful situation by changing the meaning of the event or regulating the expression of the emotion (Yi and Baumgartner 2004). They are also labeled as behavioral and cognitive coping (Roese et al 2007). …”

Regret as autobiographical memory

“…As Roese, Summerville and Fessel (2007) have pointed out, this leads to problems of circularity, in that researchers produce findings that support their definitions, but which do not necessarily reflect the reality of the phenomenon being studied. One way around this might be the inclusion of more discriminating definitions and measures of regret, such as the psychometric and phenomenological instruments used in emotion research.…”