Myopic regret avoidance: Feedback avoidance and learning in repeated decision making

Decision makers can become trapped by myopic regret avoidance in which rejecting feedback to avoid short-term outcome regret (regret associated with counterfactual outcome comparisons) leads to reduced learning and greater long-term regret over continuing poor decisions. In a series of laboratory experiments involving repeated choices among uncertain monetary prospects, participants primed with outcome regret tended to decline feedback, learned the task slowly or not at all, and performed poorly. This pattern was reversed when decision makers were primed with self-blame regret (regret over an unjustified decision). Further, in a final experiment in which task learning was unnecessary, feedback was more often rejected in the self-blame regret condition than in the outcome regret condition. We discuss the findings in terms of a distinction between two regret components, one associated with outcome evaluation, the other with the justifiability of the decision process used in making the choice. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Decision makers often face a dilemma as to whether or not to seek information about the outcomes of options they did not choose. They may seek, or deliberately avoid, information about the performance of a stock they decided not to purchase, of an employee they considered but did not hire, or of a product they examined but ultimately did not purchase. The dilemma is this: Receiving feedback on the outcome of unchosen options exposes the decision maker to the possibility of immediate painful regret if the unchosen option turns out to have done better than the chosen one. On the other hand the knowledge so gained may improve task knowledge and thus subsequent decisions, reducing regret in the longer term. Decision makers who shelter themselves from feedback on foregone options may thus minimize their experience of regret in the short term but at the cost of reduced task learning and decision quality in the longer term. We refer to this trap as myopic regret avoidance. Regret can be defined as the emotion experienced ‘‘when realizing or imagining that our current situation would have been better, if only we had decided differently” (Zeelenberg & Pieters, 2007, p. 3). Phenomenologically, the regret experience involves feelings that one should have known better, thoughts about the mistake made, a feeling of kicking oneself, and a desire to undo to action that caused regret (Zeelenberg, van Dijk, Manstead, & van der Pligt, 1998). As the definition suggests, regret is an emotion that is cognitively laden in that it requires us to think about what would have been had we acted differently. Further, the definition highlights the important role of counterfactual thought because the experience of regret tends to involve a comparison of what is with what could have been (had one chosen differently). Because regret is aversive, people are motivated to regulate it. In a very useful integrative review of existing regret research, Zeelenberg and Pieters (2007) developed a framework for understanding regret regulation strategies. According to their regret regulation theory, regret regulation strategies are decision-, alternative-, or feeling-focused, and aim at either preventing (avoiding) future regret or managing current regret. Strategies used to manage current regret include such activities as justifying one’s decision (decision-focused) and denying regret (feeling-focused). Strategies used to prevent future regret include such activities as increasing decision justifiability (decision-focused), anticipating regret (feeling-focused), and avoiding feedback about foregone alternatives (alternative-focused). A large amount of research has shown that people try to avoid future regret. For example, in a field study Wroe, Turner, and Salkovskis (2004) compared different potential predictors of actual immunization decisions and found that ‘‘anticipated regret. . . was the strongest predictor of likelihood of immunizing the child” 0749-5978/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.002 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Reb). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109 (2009) 182–189