Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 21

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

Kirkebøen, Geir, Vasaasen, Erik, Halvor Teigen, Karl·2013·Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bdm.756

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. 10.1177/009862838401100303 · DOI
  2. 10.1006/game.1995.1027 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1111/1467-9280.00141 · DOI
  4. Camerer C. F., 2003, Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction
  5. 10.1086/317590 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1086/374701 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1073/pnas.0710069105 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1515/9781503620766 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Festinger L., 1964, Conflict, decision, and dissonance
  10. 10.1257/089533005775196732 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1177/014616728174018 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/ejsp.2420140410 · DOI
  13. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.503 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.503 · Paper page
  14. 10.1177/0146167295212008 · DOI
  15. 10.1177/0146167290162009 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/0146167295217006 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1086/339925 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00035.x · DOI
  23. 10.1002/bdm.694 · DOI
  24. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.725 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/0146167287134009 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1086/209518 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1017/S1930297500000395 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1006/obhd.1995.1094 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Roese N. J., 2005, If only: How to turn regret into opportunities
  31. 10.1177/0146167205274693 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_5 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/BF00055564 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178 · Paper page
  35. 10.1007/s11031-009-9127-3 · DOI
  36. 10.1086/209571 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.607 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.04.001 · DOI
  39. 10.1080/095150899105800 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_3 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

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

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.