Biomedical subjects

M Zeelenberg

Publications and source records attributed to M Zeelenberg.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2000

Regret and Responsibility Resolved? Evaluating Ordóñez and Connolly's (2000) Conclusions.

T. Connolly, L. D. Ordo;aan;atez, and R. Coughlan (1997, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 73-85) argued, on the basis of 5 experiments, that regret need not be related to a sense of responsibility for the regretted outcome. We (M. Zeelenberg, W. W. van Dijk, & A. S. R. Manstead, 1998, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 254-272) showed in 2 experiments that this conclusion was premature, because it was based on an indirect measure of regret (i.e., overall happiness with the decision outcome). When regret was directly measured, the predicted effects of responsibility were found. L. D. Ordo;aan;atez and T. Connolly (2000, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 132-142) replicated our findings in 2 experiments. Based on their findings they arrived at 4 conclusions. In this rejoinder we first discuss Ordóñez and Connolly's new studies and we then discuss the validity of their 4 conclusions. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2000

Attributions of responsibility and affective reactions to decision outcomes.

Immediate affective reactions to outcomes are more intense following decisions to act than following decisions not to act. This finding holds for both positive and negative outcomes. We relate this "actor-effect" to attribution theory and argue that decision makers are seen as more responsible for outcomes when these are the result of a decision to act as compared to a decision not to act. Experiment 1 (N = 80) tests the main assumption underlying our reasoning and shows that affective reactions to decision outcomes are indeed more intense when the decision maker is seen as more responsible. Experiment 2 (N = 40) tests whether the actor effect can be predicted on the basis of differential attributions following action and inaction. Participants read vignettes in which active and passive actors obtained a positive or negative outcome. Action resulted in more intense affect than inaction, and positive outcomes resulted in more intense affect than negative outcomes. Experiment 2 further shows that responsibility attributions and affective reactions to outcomes are highly correlated; that is, more extreme affective reactions are associated with more internal attributions. We discuss the implications for research on post-decisional reactions.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Reconsidering the Relation between Regret and Responsibility.

Recently Connolly, Ordóñez, and Coughlan challenged the view that regret is partly determined by perceived responsibility for the regretted outcome [Connolly, T. Ordóñez, L. D., & Coughlan, R. (1997). Regret and responsibility in the evaluation of decision outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 73-85]. In a series of experiments they manipulated whether actors arrived at an outcome through their own decision or through a "computer assignment" over which they had no influence. This decision agency manipulation did not affect their "regret measure." We show in two experiments that this null-effect is due to the fact that regret was measured by means of a general happiness assessment. In the present research we replicated the basic design of their experiments and also found no effects of decision agency on the happiness assessment. However, the results showed the predicted effects of decision agency when regret was directly measured. Moreover, a measure of disappointment seemed to indicate the opposite effect: People are more disappointed when a negative outcome is caused by a computer assignment than when caused by their own choice. The role of regret and disappointment in decision making is discussed. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1998

Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Decisions: The Role of Counterfactual Thought in the Experience of Regret and Disappointment.

Regret and disappointment are emotions that can be experienced in response to an unfavorable outcome of a decision. Previous research suggests that both emotions are related to the process of counterfactual thinking. The present research extends this idea by combining it with ideas from regret and disappointment theory. The results show that regret is related to behavior-focused counterfactual thought in which the decision-maker's own actions are changed, whereas disappointment is related to situation-focused counterfactual thought in which aspects of the situation are changed. In Study 1 participants (N = 130) were asked to recall an autobiographical episode of either a regretful or a disappointing event. When asked to undo this event, regret participants predominantly changed their own actions, whereas disappointment participants predominantly changed aspects of the situation. In Study 2 all participants (N = 50) read a scenario in which a person experiences a negative event. Participants who were instructed to undo the event by changing the person's actions reported more regret than disappointment, while participants who were instructed to undo the event by changing aspects of the situation reported more disappointment than regret. Study 3 (N = 140) replicated the findings from Study 2 with a different scenario, and a design in which regret and disappointment were measured between rather than within subjects. In the discussion we address the relation among counterfactual thinking, attributions and affective reactions to decision outcomes, and the implications for decision research. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1998

The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: accuracy x knowledge accessibility effects.

Four studies provide evidence for the notion that there may be boundaries to the extent to which accuracy motivation may help perceivers to escape the influence of fortuitously activated information. Specifically, although accuracy motivations may eliminate assimilative accessibility effects, they are less likely to eliminate contrastive accessibility effects. It was found that the occurrence of different types of contrast effects (comparison and correction) was not significantly affected by participants' accuracy motivations. Furthermore, it was found that the mechanisms instigated by accuracy motivations differ from those ignited by correction instructions: Accuracy motivations attenuate assimilation effects because perceivers add target interpretations to the one suggested by primed information. Conversely, it was found that correction instructions yield contrast and prompt respondents to remove the priming event's influence from their reaction to the target.

Adolescent↗