A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret Effects on Post-Choice Valuation

In this paper we show that performance information about "forgone" alternatives (i.e., alternative that were considered but not chosen) can have a significant impact on post-choice valuation. Our approach introduces a new and parsimonious way of looking at satisfaction that combines the li...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Marketing Science. - Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. - 16(1997), 2, Seite 97-111
1. Verfasser: Inman, J. Jeffrey (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Dyer, James S., Jia, Jianmin
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 1997
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Marketing Science
Schlagworte:Buyer Behavior Utility Theory Disappointment Regret Post-Choice Valuation Satisfaction Behavioral sciences Business Law Applied sciences mehr... Mathematics Economics
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 JST056346379
003 DE-627
005 20240622022628.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 150324s1997 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)JST056346379 
035 |a (JST)184213 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Inman, J. Jeffrey  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 2 |a A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret Effects on Post-Choice Valuation 
264 1 |c 1997 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In this paper we show that performance information about "forgone" alternatives (i.e., alternative that were considered but not chosen) can have a significant impact on post-choice valuation. Our approach introduces a new and parsimonious way of looking at satisfaction that combines the literature on post-choice valuation with research regarding generalized expected utility theory. While the post-valuation literature focuses on the selected brand as the valuation's basis (e.g., Anderson and Sullivan 1993, Bolton and Drew 1991), we draw on a stream of research in generalized expected utility theory that considers both chosen and forgone alternatives as the basis for valuation (e.g., Bell 1983, 1985; Loomes and Sugden 1982, 1986). The result is a combined model of post-choice valuation that explicitly incorporates both concepts. Specifically, we extend the existing paradigm of post-choice valuation to include buyers' regret concerning forgone alternatives, proposing a generalized utility theory-based treatment of post-choice product assessment that uses the intuitively appealing concepts of disappointment and regret as the basis. We propose a model for conceptualizing post-choice valuation that is consistent with the existing literature, discuss how this model extends the construct to consider the influence of forgone alternatives, and report results of an empirical test that contrasts our model to important recent work in the area (e.g., Boulding et al. 1993). Our generalized model of post-choice valuation is based on the sum of three components that represent factors that may contribute to consumers' assessment of a chosen product or service. The first component is expected performance. The second component is disappointment, which captures the discrepancy between actual and expected performance (much as the disconfirmation construct in traditional satisfaction research). The third component is regret, which captures the difference between the performance of the chosen product/service and the performance of a forgone product/service. This perspective is useful in that risk is captured by the disappointment and regret terms, providing an intuitively appealing decompositon of post-choice valuation and offering several advances over previous representations of disappointment and regret. We test our model via a choice experiment. Participants in the empirical study were asked to make choices between successive lottery pairs. They were then given outcome feedback on the forgone alternative as well as on the chosen alternative in each lottery pair. Immediately following outcome feedback for each choice, subjects were asked to evaluate their decision. Our results clearly suggest an effect of regret on post-choice valuation-information about the forgone alternative influenced subjects' valuation of the chosen alternative. We also find evidence that, as predicted, the effects of disappointment and regret on post-choice valuation are asymmetric. Specifically, the negative effect of disappointment on post-choice valuation was greater than the positive effect of elation. Similarly, the negative effect of regret was greater than the positive impact of rejoicing. Our research offers five contributions to the literature on post-choice valuation. First, our results illustrate the advantage of using generalized utility theory as the basis for conceptualizing and modeling post-choice valuation. We derive a model of post-choice valuation that formally captures the components of disappointment and regret and show that the outcome of both the chosen alternative (through disappointment) and a forgone alternative (through regret) can influence the chosen alternative's valuation. Second, we formally integrate the concepts of disappointment and regret, which have been examined separately for many years, into a single model based on a multiattribute preference structure. Third, we argue that the effects of disappointment and regret on post-choice valuation are asymmetric and present empirical evidence in this regard. Fourth, our results suggest that word-of-mouth regarding forgone alternatives may affect post-choice valuation, extending research that has not here-tofore considered forgone outcomes' role in this process. Finally, our development provides a preconsumption measure of "potential disappointment and regret" in modeling choice. At the time of choice, consumers may visualize the feelings of disappointment and/or regret that will be derived at consumption, taking into account both the chosen brand and forgone brands. Our generalized utility theory-based approach to the post-choice valuation construct can be useful in examining the role of disappointment and regret as preconsumption constructs. 
540 |a Copyright 1997 Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences 
650 4 |a Buyer Behavior 
650 4 |a Utility Theory 
650 4 |a Disappointment 
650 4 |a Regret 
650 4 |a Post-Choice Valuation 
650 4 |a Satisfaction 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Emotion  |x Emotional states  |x Regret 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Emotion  |x Emotional states  |x Disappointment 
650 4 |a Business  |x Business administration  |x Corporate communications  |x External corporate communications  |x Marketing 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Emotion  |x Emotional states  |x Joy 
650 4 |a Law  |x Civil law  |x Property law  |x Intellectual property law  |x Industrial property  |x Utility models 
650 4 |a Business  |x Business administration  |x Corporate communications  |x External corporate communications  |x Marketing  |x Branding  |x Brands 
650 4 |a Applied sciences  |x Research methods  |x Modeling 
650 4 |a Mathematics  |x Applied mathematics  |x Statistics  |x Applied statistics  |x Statistical models  |x Parametric models 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Microeconomics  |x Economic utility 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Microeconomics  |x Economic utility  |x Expected utility 
655 4 |a research-article 
700 1 |a Dyer, James S.  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Jia, Jianmin  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Marketing Science  |d Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences  |g 16(1997), 2, Seite 97-111  |w (DE-627)320627799  |w (DE-600)2023536-7  |x 1526548X  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:16  |g year:1997  |g number:2  |g pages:97-111 
856 4 0 |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/184213  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_JST 
912 |a GBV_ILN_11 
912 |a GBV_ILN_20 
912 |a GBV_ILN_22 
912 |a GBV_ILN_23 
912 |a GBV_ILN_24 
912 |a GBV_ILN_31 
912 |a GBV_ILN_32 
912 |a GBV_ILN_39 
912 |a GBV_ILN_40 
912 |a GBV_ILN_60 
912 |a GBV_ILN_62 
912 |a GBV_ILN_63 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_69 
912 |a GBV_ILN_70 
912 |a GBV_ILN_90 
912 |a GBV_ILN_95 
912 |a GBV_ILN_100 
912 |a GBV_ILN_110 
912 |a GBV_ILN_120 
912 |a GBV_ILN_152 
912 |a GBV_ILN_187 
912 |a GBV_ILN_224 
912 |a GBV_ILN_285 
912 |a GBV_ILN_374 
912 |a GBV_ILN_702 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2001 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2003 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2005 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2006 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2007 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2008 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2009 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2010 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2011 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2014 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2015 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2018 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2020 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2021 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2026 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2034 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2044 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2048 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2050 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2055 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2056 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2057 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2059 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2061 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2065 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2068 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2106 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2107 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2108 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2111 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2113 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2118 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2122 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2129 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2143 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2147 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2148 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2152 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2153 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2190 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2232 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2472 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2935 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2940 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2949 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2950 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4035 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4037 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4046 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4125 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4126 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4242 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4246 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4249 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4251 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4305 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4306 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4307 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4313 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4322 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4323 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4324 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4325 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4326 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4335 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4338 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4346 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4393 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4700 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 16  |j 1997  |e 2  |h 97-111