The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Testing for Regret and Disappointment in Choice Under Uncertainty
Abstract
Much of the experimental evidence concerning violations of von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility theory has been collected fr om experiments designed with conventional theory in mind and does not provide direct tests of alternative models such as regret theory and disappointment theory. This paper reports and discusses recent evidence produced by an exp erimentspe cifically designed to test for the impacts of regret and disappointment, and to indicate their relative importance. Copyright 1987 by Royal Economic Society.
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
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Decision, Probability and Utility · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,474
Allais, M. (1953) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907921 · Cited by 4,112
Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232669 · Cited by 4,042
Self-citationRegret in Decision Making under Uncertainty
Bell, D. E. (1982) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.30.5.961 · Cited by 2,977
"Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom
Machina, M. J. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912631 · Cited by 1,517
The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2007) · Journal of Economic Literature · Cited by 1,426
Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty
Bell, D. E. (1985) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.33.1.1 · Cited by 1,257
Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1986) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2297651 · Cited by 857
Self-citationNontransitive measurable utility
Fishburn, P. C. (1982) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-2496(82)90034-7 · Cited by 494
Some implications of a more general form of regret theory
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1987) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/0022-0531(87)90020-2 · Cited by 438
Self-citation
Cited by
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167
The experience of regret: What, when, and why.
Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.379 · Cited by 1,098
Metadata
- Authors
- Loomes, G., & Sugden, R.
- Venue
- The Economic Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1987
- Volume
- 97
- Pages
- 118
- ISSN
- 0013-0133 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2048838831
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 3.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Testing for Regret and Disappointment in Choice Under Uncertainty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3038234
- The paper
- Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1987). Testing for Regret and Disappointment in Choice Under Uncertainty. The Economic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/3038234
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.
