The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Regret in Repeat Purchase versus Switching Decisions: The Attenuating Role of Decision Justifiability
Open accessAbstract
The decision-making literature has consistently reported that decisions to maintain the status quo tend to be regretted less than decisions to change it. We examine the consequences of repeat purchasing (maintaining the status quo) versus switching in the context of information regarding the reason for the decision (e.g., prior consumption episode, brand history), and we argue that there are situations in which repeat purchasing may cause as much or even more regret than switching. We contend that this effect depends on whether or not there is a justifiable basis for the decision. In a series of four studies, we show that if there is sufficient motivation to warrant a switch, consumers will feel less regret in the face of a subsequent negative outcome realized via a switch than in one realized via a repeat purchase. Our results imply that feelings of regret are mitigated when the consumer reflects and concludes that the decision was appropriate under the circumstances.
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.
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
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193 · Cited by 5,019
The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209380 · Cited by 3,811 · cited 1×
“Interestingly, several subjects wrote “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it,” which is suggestive of folk knowledge (e.g., Friestad and Wright 1994) about maintaining the status quo.”
Shafir, E. (1993) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-s · Cited by 1,453
Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.332 · Cited by 839
Status-quo and omission biases
Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00208786 · Cited by 613
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- Baron, Jonathan and Ilana Ritov (1994), “Reference Points and Omission Bias,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59 (September), 475–498. · DOI
- Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (December), 1173–1182. · DOI · Paper page
- Bell, David E. (1985), “Disappointment in Decision Making under Uncertainty,” Operations Research, 33 (January–February), 1–27. · DOI · Paper page
- Bolton, Ruth N. and James S. Drew (1991), “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (January), 1–9. · DOI
- Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, and Richard Staelin (1999), “The Quality Double Whammy,” Marketing Science, 18 (4), 463–484. · DOI
- Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1993), “A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 7–27. · DOI · Paper page
- Cooke, Alan D. J., Tom Meyvis, and Alan Schwartz (2001), “Avoiding Future Regret in Purchase-Timing Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 447–459. · DOI
- Hartman, Raymond S., Michael J. Doane, and Chi-Keung Woo (1991), “Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (February), 141–162. · DOI · Paper page
- Hesketh, Beryl (1996), “Status Quo Effects in Decision-Making about Training and Career Development,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48 (June), 324–338. · DOI
- Inman, J. Jeffrey, James S. Dyer, and Jianmin Jia (1997), “A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret Effects on Post-choice Valuation,” Marketing Science, 16 (2), 97–111. · DOI · Paper page
- Janis, Irving L. and Leon Mann (1977), Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment, New York: Free Press.
- Kahneman, Daniel and Dale T. Miller (1986), “Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives,” Psychological Review, 93 (April), 136–153. · DOI
- Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1982), “The Psychology of Preferences,” Scientific American, 246 (January), 136–142. · DOI
- Landman, Janet (1987), “Regret and Elation following Action and Inaction,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13 (December), 524–536. · DOI · Paper page
- Luce, Mary Frances (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 409–433. · DOI · Paper page
- Macy, Michael W. (1995), “PAVLOV and the Evolution of Cooperation: An Experimental Test,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 (June), 74–87. · DOI
- Montgomery, Henry (1983), “Decision Rules and the Search for a Dominance Structure: Toward a Process Model of Decision Making,” in Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes, ed. Patrick Humphreys, Ola Svenson, and Anna Vari, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 343–369. · DOI · Paper page
- N'gbala, Ahogni and Nyla R. Branscombe (1997), “When Does Action Elicit More Regret than Inaction and Is Counterfactual Thinking the Mediator of This Effect?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33 (May), 324–343. · DOI
- Ordóñez, Lisa D. and Terry Connolly (2000), “Regret and Responsibility: A Reply to Zeelenberg et al.,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81 (January), 132–142. · DOI
- Perdue, Barbara C. and John O. Summers (1986), “Checking the Success of Manipulations in Marketing Experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (November), 317–326. · DOI · Paper page
- Rust, Roland T., J. Jeffrey Inman, Jianmin Jia, and Anthony Zahorik (1999), “What You Don't Know about Customer-Perceived Quality: The Role of Customer Expectation Distributions,” Marketing Science, 18 (1), 77–92. · DOI · Paper page
- Schweitzer, Maurice (1994), “Disentangling Status Quo and Omission Effects: An Experimental Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58 (June), 457–476. · DOI
- Shimanoff, Susan B. (1984), “Commonly Named Emotions in Everyday Conversations,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58 (April), 514. · DOI
- Simonson, Itamar (1992), “The Influence of Anticipating Regret and Responsibility on Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 105–118. · DOI · Paper page
- Sugden, Robert (1985), “Regret, Recrimination and Rationality,” Theory and Decision, 19 (July), 77–99. · DOI · Paper page
- Thaler, Richard H. and Eric J. Johnson (1990), “Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice,” Management Science, 36 (June), 643–661. · DOI · Paper page
- Tsiros, Michael and Vikas Mittal (2000), “Regret: A Model of Its Antecedents and Consequences in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 401–417. · DOI · Paper page
- Van den Bos, Kees, Riel Vermunt, and Henk A. M. Wilke (1997), “Procedural and Distributive Justice: What Is Fair Depends More on What Comes First than on What Comes Next,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (January), 95–104. · DOI
- Zeelenberg, Marcel, J. Jeffrey Inman, and Rik G. M. Pieters (2001), “What We Do When Decisions Go Awry: Behavioral Consequences of Experienced Regret,” in Conflict and Tradeoffs in Decision Making, ed. Elke U. Weber, Jonathan Baron, and Graham Loomes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 136–155.
- Zeelenberg, Marcel and Rik Pieters (1999), “On Service Delivery That Might Have Been: Behavioral Consequences of Disappointment and Regret,” Journal of Service Research, 2 (August), 86–97. · DOI · Paper page
- Zeelenberg, Marcel, Kees van den Bos, Eric van Dijk, and Rik Pieters (2002), “The Inaction Effect in the Psychology of Regret,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 314–327. · DOI
Cited by
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.133 · Cited by 1,482
Confente, I., Scarpi, D., & Russo, I. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.030 · Cited by 321
The Mediating Role of Anticipated Guilt in Consumers’ Ethical Decision-Making
Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2006) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9090-9 · Cited by 185
Confused by too many choices? Choice overload in tourism
Park, J.-Y., & Jang, S. (. (2013) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.05.004 · Cited by 171
How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature
Godefroid, M.-E., Plattfaut, R., & Niehaves, B. (2023) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-022-00283-8 · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Inman, J. J., & Zeelenberg, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 116-128
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2077596774
- Cited by
- 412
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 7.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Regret in Repeat Purchase versus Switching Decisions: The Attenuating Role of Decision Justifiability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/339925
- The paper
- Inman, J. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in Repeat Purchase versus Switching Decisions: The Attenuating Role of Decision Justifiability. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/339925
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.
