Sex Differences in Regret: All For Love or Some For Lust?

Roese, Neal J.; Pennington, Ginger L.; Coleman, Jill M.; Janicki, Maria; Li, Norman P.; Kenrick, Douglas T.

doi:10.1177/0146167206286709

Cited by 79 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regrets of inaction are more likely to be activated when the individual has suffered a promotion failure, but regrets of action are more likely when the individual has suffered a prevention failure (Pennington & Roese, 2003a;Roese, Hur, & Pennington, 1999;Roese et al, 2006). In large part this pattern stems from a simple matching of normative expectancies.…”

Section: Motivational Implications Of the Action-inaction Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regret and Behavior: Comment on Zeelenberg and Pieters

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Motivational Implications Of the Action-inaction Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regret and Behavior: Comment on Zeelenberg and Pieters

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These mating strategies are not necessarily conscious; rather our emotions, our desires, and what we find attractive are what directs and motivates our mating behavior (Buss and Schmitt 1993). Emotions thus play a key role, both in terms of motivating our behavior but also in drawing attention to relevant cues and contexts, and allowing us to ruminate on poor choices or missed opportunities (Buss 1989;Roese et al 2006;Symons 1979).…”

Section: Sexual Strategies and Emotionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For women, this reported incidence of romantic thoughts did not decline with an increase in number of partners, whereas for men romantic thoughts were inversely associated with number of sex partners. In addition, research on counterfactual thinking indicates that men tend to regret actions not taken (missed sexual opportunities), whereas women regret actions taken: single sexual encounters, number of casual partners, sex with strangers or with partners who falsely promised commitment (Gute and Eshbaugh 2008;Galperin et al 2013;Roese et al 2006).…”

Section: Sexual Strategies and Emotionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Casual Sex and College Students: Sex Differences and the Impact of Father Absence

Salmon

Townsend

Hehman

2016

Evolutionary Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, much attention has been focused on understanding casual sex, or hooking up, among college students. The current study uses an adaptationist approach to investigate sex differences in casual sex behavior, emotional reactions, and the influence of father absence. If males and females possess different emotional mechanisms designed to evaluate the consequences of sexual behavior, we would expect sex differences in emotional reactions following that behavior. A sub-theory of life history strategy, psychosocial acceleration theory, predicts that stressful childhood environments will result in accelerated puberty and increased adult promiscuity. This study examines the impact of one childhood stressor, father absence, on casual sex, along with the previously mentioned sex differences in college students. Results indicate that (1) while there was no significant difference in the number of overall sex partners in the last 12 months, males had significantly more casual sex than did females, (2) females had significantly more negative emotional reactions to casual sex than did males, and (3) males and females who grew up in stressful childhood environments (indexed by father absence) were more likely to engage in casual sexual behavior. These results are discussed in light of sexual strategies theory.

show abstract

“…Men and women think regret-related counterfactual thoughts with equal frequency (Landman & Manis, 1992), although sex differences have been found: women are more likely than men to report family and relationship regrets (Jokisaari, 2004) and within the domain of romantic relationships men are more likely than women to regret not having had more partners (Roese, Pennington, Janicki, Li & Kenrick, 2006). Regret is found in samples of young and old participants (Wrosch & Heckhausen 2002), in cross-cultural studies of American, Chinese, Japanese and Russian samples (Gilovich, Wang, Regan & Nishina, 2003) and in studies carried out independently in Turkey (Toktas, 2002),…”

Section: Who Experiences Regret What Do People Regret and Why?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regret as autobiographical memory

Davison

Feeney

2008

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses• the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.

show abstract

Sex Differences in Regret: All For Love or Some For Lust?

Cited by 79 publications

References 45 publications

Regret and Behavior: Comment on Zeelenberg and Pieters

Regret and Behavior: Comment on Zeelenberg and Pieters

Casual Sex and College Students: Sex Differences and the Impact of Father Absence

Regret as autobiographical memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About