Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSummerville, Amyen_US
dc.contributor.authorRoese, Neal J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFessel, Florianen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-04T16:50:59Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-10T15:09:41Z
dc.date.available2011-05-04T16:50:59Zen_US
dc.date.available2013-07-10T15:09:41Z
dc.date.issued2011-05-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Consumer Psychology, 17(1), 25-28en_US
dc.identifier.uri
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2374.MIA/4420en_US
dc.description.abstractZeelenberg 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 con- sumer 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 under- pinning has and continues to be elucidated in research focusing on counter factual thinking.en_US
dc.subjectregret regulation theoryen_US
dc.subjectopportunity principleen_US
dc.subjectdecision makingen_US
dc.titleRegret and behavior: comment on Zeelenberg and Pietersen_US
dc.typeTexten_US
dc.date.published2007en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record