The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revisions and Regret: The Cost of Changing your Mind
Abstract
Decision reversals often imply improved decisions. Yet, people show a strong resistance against changing their minds. These are well‐established findings, which suggest that changed decisions carry a subjective cost, perhaps by being more strongly regretted. Three studies were conducted to explore participants' regret when making reversible decisions and to test the hypothesis that changing one's mind will increase post‐outcome regret. The first two studies employed the Ultimatum game and the Trust game. The third study used a variant of the Monty Hall problem. All games were conducted by individual participants playing interactively against a computer. The outcomes were designed to capture a common characteristic of real‐life decisions: they varied from rather negative to fairly positive, and for every outcome, it was possible to imagine both more and less profitable outcomes. In all experiments, those who changed their minds reported much stronger post‐outcome regret than those who did not change, even if the final outcomes were equally good (Experiments 2 and 3) or better (Experiment 1).This finding was not because of individual differences with respect to gender, tendency to regret, or tendency to maximize. Previous studies have found that those who change from a correct to wrong option regret more than those who select a wrong option directly. This study indicates that this finding is a special case of a more general phenomenon: changing one's mind seems to come with a cost, even when one ends up with favorable outcomes. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For example, most studies end after decisions are made, without exposing decisionmakers to the full consequences of their choices (Kirkebøen et al., 2013), which can influence user engagement even in scenarios labeled as high stakes.”
From Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as Kirkebøen et al., 2013
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4 · Cited by 2,573
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- 10.1177/009862838401100303 · DOI
- 10.1006/game.1995.1027 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1467-9280.00141 · DOI
- Camerer C. F., 2003, Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction
- 10.1086/317590 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/374701 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.0710069105 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1515/9781503620766 · DOI · Paper page
- Festinger L., 1964, Conflict, decision, and dissonance
- 10.1257/089533005775196732 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/014616728174018 · DOI
- 10.1002/ejsp.2420140410 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.503 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.503 · Paper page
- 10.1177/0146167295212008 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167290162009 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167295217006 · DOI
- 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/339925 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00035.x · DOI
- 10.1002/bdm.694 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.725 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167287134009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/209518 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S1930297500000395 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/obhd.1995.1094 · DOI · Paper page
- Roese N. J., 2005, If only: How to turn regret into opportunities
- 10.1177/0146167205274693 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_5 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00055564 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178 · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11031-009-9127-3 · DOI
- 10.1086/209571 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.607 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.04.001 · DOI
- 10.1080/095150899105800 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_3 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Gomez, C., Cho, S. M., Ke, S., Huang, C.-M., & Unberath, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2024.1521066 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirkebøen, G., Vasaasen, E., & Halvor Teigen, K.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology University of Oslo Oslo Norway
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-09-15
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-12
- ISSN
- 0894-3257
- 1099-0771
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revisions and Regret: The Cost of Changing your Mind. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bdm.756
- The paper
- Kirkebøen, G., Vasaasen, E., & Halvor Teigen, K. (2013). Revisions and Regret: The Cost of Changing your Mind. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.756
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.