Anticipatory Regret: Psychology of Future Sorrow

Anticipatory regret represents a critical nexus between human cognition, prospective emotional forecasting, and rational decision-making. By projecting oneself into an imagined future, a decision-maker evaluates potential psychological distress resulting from suboptimal choices, transforming anticipated sorrow into an immediate behavioral catalyst. Understanding this mechanism illuminates how humans navigate complex dilemmas ranging from medical interventions and financial investments to everyday consumer behaviors and interpersonal commitments.

Anticipatory Regret

1. Concise Definition

Anticipatory regret is a prospective, cognitive-emotional phenomenon in which an individual foresees and calculates the psychological distress of future regret prior to making a choice, thereby altering their current decision to avoid or minimize that expected unpleasant state.

Unlike experienced regret, which is an emotional reaction occurring after an unfavorable outcome is realized, anticipatory regret operates strictly before commitment. The individual pre-emptively engages in mental time travel, imagining counterfactual scenarios where an alternative path produces a superior outcome to the chosen one. This anticipated disparity between realized reality and a foregone, preferable alternative generates a current emotional and cognitive signal that actively steers behavioral trajectories.

In cognitive psychology and behavioral economics, the term encompasses both the rational calculation of future utility penalties and the visceral, pre-decisional tension evoked by the awareness of one’s future vulnerability to self-blame. By integrating affective expectations into the deliberative matrix, anticipatory regret acts as an essential self-regulatory mechanism designed to shield the individual from future psychological pain.

2. Etymology & Linguistic Origin

The term is a compound construct derived from Latin and Germanic roots via French. The modifier anticipatory originates from the classical Latin anticipatus, the past participle of anticipare, meaning “to take beforehand, anticipate, or forestall.” This is formed from the elements ante (“before”) and capere (“to take, seize, or grasp”). In psychological parlance, it denotes cognitive representations or emotional states that precede an objective event.

The root noun regret entered Middle English from the Old French regreter (modern French: regretter), signifying “to lament, bewail someone’s death, or recall with grief.” Historical linguists trace this to a Germanic origin, specifically the Proto-Germanic *gretan (“to weep, cry out, or lament”; related to the Old Norse gráta and Scots greet), combined with the intensive prefix re-. Thus, etymologically, regret denotes an iterative weeping or returning to an emotional state of mourning over past conduct.

The fusion of these components into a formal construct emerged in late-twentieth-century decision research. Economists seeking to challenge expected utility theory married the prospective temporal posture of “anticipation” with the counterfactual sorrow of “regret,” formalizing an analytical terminology that subsequently migrated across psychological, managerial, and clinical literatures.

3. Pronunciation & Grammatical Form

Pronunciation: /ænˌtɪs.ɪ.pəˈtɔːr.i rɪˈɡrɛt/ (American English) or /ænˌtɪs.ɪ.pə.tər.i rɪˈɡret/ (British English).

Grammatical Form: Compound noun phrase; often used non-countably when referring to the psychological construct as a general phenomenon (e.g., “anticipatory regret influences health behaviors”), but countable when identifying specific instances, forecasts, or experimental conditions (e.g., “she experienced several anticipatory regrets regarding her career transitions”).

Syntactic Variations: Frequently employed adjectivally (e.g., “anticipatory regret effects,” “anticipatory regret manipulation”). In behavioral economics, it is closely paired with and sometimes treated as synonymous with anticipated regret, although fine distinctions exist between the current visceral feeling (anticipatory) and the cognitive projection of a future emotion (anticipated).

4. Detailed Conceptual Explanation

To fully grasp anticipatory regret, one must analyze the cognitive architecture of human prospective simulation. Human beings do not navigate decision landscapes merely through static probabilities and expected utility. Instead, people possess the unique capacity for mental simulation—projecting their psychological self into diverse hypothetical futures. Within this simulation, individuals foresee not only material states (e.g., wealth, physical health, social position) but also emotional states, a process formally studied under the rubric of affective forecasting.

Anticipatory regret specifically activates when an agent realizes that an upcoming decision carries an asymmetric risk of personal responsibility. For regret to occur, an unfavorable outcome must not merely be perceived as bad luck; it must be causally attributed to the decision-maker’s own choice. Thus, when an individual anticipates regret, they anticipate the pain of self-recrimination. They foresee looking back at the present moment and asking, “Why did I choose this course of action when the alternative was within my grasp?” This potential for internal attribution distinguishes anticipatory regret from anticipatory disappointment, which stems from external circumstances or bad states of the world beyond the individual’s control.

The prospective mechanism relies heavily on the ease with which alternatives can be mentally generated. Under Kahneman and Miller’s norm theory, outcomes brought about through unconventional, abnormal, or active choices are far more mutable than those resulting from routine or passive defaults. Consequently, anticipatory regret creates a powerful conservative bias in many decision domains. People foresee that taking an uncustomary risk and failing will trigger severe self-blame, whereas failing through inaction or conforming to standard norms allows for protective rationalization. Conversely, when the potential for a missed, unrepeatable opportunity looms large, anticipatory regret can flip, driving impulsive action to preempt the sorrow of a lost chance.

Furthermore, anticipatory regret is inherently sensitive to the presence of feedback. Empirical paradigms reveal that people do not anticipate regret equally for all uncertain options; they anticipate it intensely when they expect to discover the outcome of the unchosen option. If an individual purchases Stock A and leaves Stock B, they will experience profound anticipatory regret regarding Stock B only if they expect to observe Stock B’s subsequent market performance. If the counterfactual outcome remains permanently obscured, the scope for post-decisional counterfactual comparison collapses, thereby attenuating the intensity of the anticipatory emotion.

5. Historical Development

The systematic study of anticipatory regret arose out of the empirical failures of classical Expected Utility Theory (EUT), which dominated twentieth-century neoclassical economics. EUT assumed that decision-makers evaluated options solely based on the mathematical expectation of their outcomes, weighted by subjective or objective probabilities, devoid of emotional feedback loops. However, experimental anomalies such as the Allais Paradox revealed that human decision-makers regularly systematically violate expected utility axioms.

In 1982, two landmark papers fundamentally transformed the landscape. Working independently, the economist David E. Bell published “Regret in Decision Making Under Uncertainty” in Operations Research, while Graham Loomes and Robert Sugden published “Regret Theory: An Alternative Approach to Rational Choice Under Uncertainty” in The Economic Journal. Both contributions formulated what is now known as Regret Theory. These authors mathematically incorporated an adjustment factor into the utility function representing the anticipated psychological payoff or penalty resulting from comparing the chosen state with the unchosen state.

During the 1990s, cognitive and social psychologists recognized that the economic models of Loomes, Sugden, and Bell, while mathematically elegant, treated regret largely as a cold, calculated variable. Psychologists such as Marcel Zeelenberg, Jane Beattie, and Rik Pieters began examining the “hot,” phenomenological reality of anticipatory regret. Zeelenberg’s seminal work demonstrated that anticipatory regret is not merely a risk-averse bias, as early economists assumed, but can induce both risk-averse and risk-seeking behaviors depending on which option threatens to reveal counterfactual feedback.

In the twenty-first century, research expanded into health psychology, organizational behavior, and neuroscience. Researchers like Richard, van der Pligt, and de Vries incorporated anticipated affective reactions into modified versions of the Theory of Planned Behavior, demonstrating that anticipatory regret significantly improves the prediction of health-related behaviors over cognitive beliefs alone. Neuroimaging studies by Camille and colleagues in 2004 illuminated the neural substrates of anticipated and experienced regret, identifying the orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala as critical nodes for processing prospective counterfactual penalties.

6. Theoretical Foundations

The academic infrastructure supporting anticipatory regret draws upon several interlocking conceptual models across decision science and social psychology:

Regret Theory (Loomes & Sugden, 1982; Bell, 1982): This normative and descriptive model posits that an individual’s total subjective utility derived from an outcome is composed of two components: the direct utility of the asset or experience itself, and an emotional component representing rejoicing or regret. If the chosen option yields an outcome inferior to what the non-chosen option would have yielded under the same state of the world, the individual incurs a utility penalty (regret). Decision-makers consciously anticipate this discrepancy and choose courses of action that maximize net expected utility, explicitly factoring in this prospective emotional trade-off.

Decision Justification Theory (Connolly & Zeelenberg, 2002): This framework asserts that post-decisional regret comprises two distinct components: regret related to the comparative quality of the outcome, and regret related to the perceived quality or justifiability of the decision-making process. Consequently, anticipatory regret serves as a vigilance mechanism. Decision-makers attempt to shield themselves from future self-blame by making choices that are easily defensible, adhering to established norms, consulting experts, or extensively deliberating to secure pre-emptive justification.

Counterfactual Thinking and Norm Theory (Kahneman & Miller, 1986; Roese, 1997): Regret is uniquely dependent upon counterfactual thinking—the cognitive generation of “what might have been.” Norm Theory demonstrates that events deviating from routine or standard behavior activate accessible counterfactual alternatives. Anticipatory regret operates by simulating these upward counterfactuals in advance, alerting the individual to scenarios where a prospective failure would appear readily avoidable, thereby amplifying projected blame.

Risk-as-Feelings Hypothesis (Loewenstein et al., 2001): This perspective differentiates between cognitive assessments of risk and emotional reactions to uncertainty. Anticipatory regret sits at the crossroads of these two dimensions: it involves a cognitive anticipation of an emotion (an anticipated emotion), while simultaneously inducing an immediate, visceral discomfort in the present moment (an anticipatory emotion) that compels behavioral modification.

7. Key Components, Types & Dimensions

Anticipatory regret can be decomposed into structural elements, directional classifications, and psychological dimensions:

• Cognitive Counterfactual Simulation: The deliberative capacity to generate prospective scenarios, comparing the hypothetical trajectory of Action A against Action B under varying probabilistic conditions.
• Anticipated Agency and Responsibility: The perceived causal attribution link connecting the actor’s current decision directly to the future outcome, without which regret dissolves into mere sorrow or disappointment.
• Expected Feedback Availability: The subjective probability that the actor will learn the outcome of the unchosen alternative, a condition that substantially escalates anticipatory emotional intensity.
• Regret of Commission (Action Regret): Anticipatory concern centered on actively taking a step that results in catastrophe (e.g., selling a stable asset, trying an unproven medication). Historically, actions generate sharper short-term anticipatory regret.
• Regret of Omission (Inaction Regret): Anticipatory distress surrounding missed opportunities, inertia, or failing to act when intervention could have produced a superior life state. In long-term horizons, anticipated omissions often carry deep existential weight.
• Temporal Proximity Dimension: The psychological distance between the decision moment and the eventual resolution; shorter temporal horizons tend to elevate visceral anticipatory anxiety, while distant horizons prompt reflective, value-laden anticipated regrets.

8. Examples & Illustrative Cases

Real-world manifestations of anticipatory regret emerge across diverse professional, clinical, and consumer settings:

Medical Interventions and Vaccination Decisions: Consider a patient deciding whether to undergo an elective, invasive spinal surgery to alleviate chronic back pain. The surgery holds a 70% chance of substantial relief, but a 5% chance of surgical complications causing increased paralysis. Anticipatory regret of commission dominates the patient’s deliberation: “If I proceed with the surgery and become paralyzed, I will spend the rest of my life lamenting that I destroyed my baseline mobility through my own choice.” Conversely, in contexts involving prophylactic vaccines, parents frequently struggle with the omission bias; the anticipated regret of actively administering a shot that might trigger rare adverse side effects often outweighs the statistically higher risk of the child contracting a severe preventable illness through inaction.

Financial Investments and Market Timing: An investor notices an aggressive rally in a volatile asset class, such as speculative technology equities. Two distinct manifestations of anticipatory regret occur simultaneously. On one hand, the investor fears entering the market at the peak, anticipating the severe self-reproach of losing capital through reckless pursuit of gains (fear of commission). On the other hand, the investor experiences acute anticipatory regret regarding missing further parabolic upside—widely popularized as FOMO (Fear of Missing Out)—which is fundamentally an anticipated regret of omission. The financial behavior observed (selling, buying, or freezing) depends entirely on which prospective counterfactual is rendered most cognitively vivid.

Consumer Behavior and Warranty Acquisition: Retailers systematically exploit anticipatory regret when marketing extended warranties for consumer electronics. When a customer purchases a high-end laptop, the salesperson asks: “What will you do if the motherboard fails in thirteen months, one month after the manufacturer warranty expires? For an additional 10% cost, you avoid that entire disaster.” By rendering the prospective scenario accessible and salient, the salesperson prompts anticipatory regret, driving the consumer to purchase an actuarially unfavorable insurance product purely to purchase psychological peace of mind.

9. Measurement & Assessment

Quantifying a prospective cognitive-affective process presents methodological challenges. Researchers have constructed psychometric instruments, experimental tasks, and behavioral paradigms to measure both trait-level susceptibilities and state-level activations of anticipatory regret.

Psychometric Self-Report Scales: State anticipatory regret is traditionally measured using contextualized Likert items integrated into scenario studies or behavioral intention questionnaires (e.g., “If I do not exercise this week, I will feel regret,” scored from 1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree). At the trait level, scales such as the Regret and Maximization Scale (Schwartz et al., 2002) capture an individual’s general propensity to experience regret and their tendency to exhaustively search for the optimal choice to avert prospective self-reproach. Similarly, the Anticipated Regret Questionnaire (Sheeran & Orbell, 1999) has demonstrated robust predictive validity across clinical and social domains.

Experimental Manipulation and Vignette Studies: In laboratory settings, researchers manipulate the salience of anticipatory regret by providing explicit prompts before subjects make high-stakes choices. Common protocols include the “feedback manipulation,” where participants are informed whether they will learn the outcome of unchosen lotteries. By systematically varying counterfactual feedback, experimenters isolate the precise weight that subjects place on prospective regret compared to baseline risk preferences.

Neurophysiological Measures: Because anticipatory regret includes a present-moment affective component, psychophysiological measures provide objective assessment windows. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) and heart rate variability (HRV) are utilized to track autonomic arousal during the contemplation of regret-laden choices. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) tasks assess activation profiles in the orbitofrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and the insula, revealing that heightened neural activity in these regions prior to a choice strongly correlates with behavioral modifications designed to avoid counterfactual penalties.

10. Applications & Practical Significance

The practical utility of understanding anticipatory regret spans multiple applied domains:

Public Health and Behavioral Change: Health communicators leverage anticipatory regret to bridge the intention-behavior gap. Standard educational campaigns that merely convey epidemiological statistics often fail to alter behaviors. However, interventions that prime anticipatory regret—such as asking adolescents to imagine how they would feel if they contracted an STI after failing to use protection, or prompting sedentary adults to visualize their prospective self-reproach after a preventable cardiac event—demonstrate marked improvements in treatment adherence, vaccination uptake, and cancer screening participation.

Organizational Management and Strategic Planning: In corporate boardrooms, anticipatory regret serves as both an asset and a liability. Strategic leaders routinely conduct “pre-mortems”—a prospective exercise pioneered by Gary Klein wherein teams imagine that a planned project has completely failed, and work backward to determine why. This exercise deliberately evokes anticipatory regret in a controlled manner, stripping away corporate overconfidence and prompting thorough risk mitigation. Conversely, unchecked anticipatory regret among executives can cause organizational paralysis, entrenching status quo biases and hindering radical innovation due to fear of career-ending commission errors.

Marketing and Pricing Architecture: Commercial enterprises deploy anticipatory regret through scarcity marketing, limited-time promotions, and strategic loss framing. Phrases such as “Don’t miss out—only two rooms left at this price!” are calculated to stimulate anticipatory regret of omission. When consumers are forced to confront the prospective pain of watching an attractive opportunity evaporate, their propensity to transact surges, bypassing deliberative price comparisons.

11. Research & Empirical Evidence

Decades of empirical studies validate the pervasive influence of anticipatory regret across varied behavioral contexts.

In a seminal study, Richard, van der Pligt, and de Vries (1996) examined adolescent sexual behavior, dietary habits, and alcohol consumption. They modified the standard Theory of Planned Behavior by adding measures of anticipated affective reactions. Their findings revealed that anticipated regret explained a significant proportion of unique variance in subsequent behavior, beyond the variance accounted for by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Subjects who explicitly anticipated post-behavior regret engaged in significantly safer sexual practices and reduced substance use over long-term follow-up intervals.

Zeelenberg and Beattie (1997) experimentally disentangled the relationship between regret and risk. Operating within an ultimatum game paradigm, they demonstrated that when players expected to receive complete feedback regarding the minimum acceptable offer of their counterpart, they significantly raised their offers. This was not driven by generalized risk aversion, but by a precise desire to eliminate the anticipatory regret that would accompany making an offer that was rejected by a tiny margin. Their experiments conclusively proved that anticipatory regret can promote either cautious or risk-tolerant behavior, dictated entirely by which choice minimizes prospective feedback-induced self-blame.

In an influential longitudinal synthesis, Gilovich and Medvec (1995) resolved the historical debate concerning action versus inaction. They found that in short-term decision horizons, individuals report profound anticipatory and experienced regret for actions taken that turned out poorly (errors of commission). However, over extended retrospective spans (looking back over decades of life), individuals overwhelmingly experience their most agonizing regrets regarding actions not taken—untaken career risks, unspoken feelings, and foregone educational journeys (errors of omission). This temporal asymmetry profoundly influences how anticipatory regret guides choices over the human lifespan.

12. Cultural & Cross-Cultural Considerations

While the capacity for counterfactual reasoning is a universal human trait, the triggers, intensity, and behavioral resolutions of anticipatory regret are heavily moderated by cultural dimensions.

In Western, individualistic societies (such as the United States, Western Europe, and Australia), personal autonomy, agency, and self-actualization are primary cultural values. Consequently, anticipatory regret in these contexts is tightly coupled with individual responsibility and self-blame. When outcomes sour, the individual bears the psychological burden alone. This dynamic elevates anticipatory regret in choices regarding personal career choices, romantic partner selection, and material consumption, with actors acutely sensitive to failures of individual optimization.

In contrast, collectivist societies (such as those in East Asia, Latin America, and parts of Africa) construct the self relationally, prioritizing social harmony, familial obligation, and collective well-being. Empirical investigations by researchers like Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama indicate that in these cultural settings, anticipatory regret focuses predominantly on social and interpersonal outcomes. An individual in Japan or South Korea is far more likely to experience intense anticipatory regret regarding a choice that could dishonor family expectations, violate social consensus, or alienate their peer group than regarding choices that merely limit individual expressive autonomy.

Moreover, the tendency toward risk aversion versus risk-seeking in response to anticipatory regret shifts across cultural landscapes. Research comparing Chinese and American decision-makers indicates that Chinese participants often exhibit lower anticipatory regret regarding financial risks because of strong informal familial safety nets (the “cushion hypothesis”), whereas their anticipatory regret regarding social norm violations is substantially elevated compared to their Western counterparts.

13. Criticisms, Debates & Limitations

Despite its broad acceptance, the study of anticipatory regret faces notable methodological and conceptual critiques:

Conflation of Anticipated vs. Anticipatory Regret: Conceptual clarity remains a persistent debate in the literature. George Loewenstein and colleagues have argued that researchers frequently conflate anticipated regret (a detached, cognitive prediction about future emotions) with anticipatory regret (an immediate, visceral emotional reaction experienced in the present while contemplating uncertainty). A person may cognitively recognize that a future choice might yield regret without actually feeling an visceral pang of distress in the present. Failing to disentangle these dual processes can lead to inaccurate predictions of behavioral compliance.

The Impact Bias in Affective Forecasting: Daniel Gilbert and Timothy Wilson have extensively documented the human tendency toward “immune neglect” and the impact bias. Individuals systematically overestimate the intensity and duration of their future negative emotions, including regret. Because humans possess robust psychological immune systems (rationalization, cognitive dissonance reduction, reappraisal), experienced regret is typically far milder and shorter-lived than anticipated regret forecasts suggest. Consequently, decisions guided heavily by anticipatory regret are often suboptimal, as individuals sacrifice significant potential gains to avert an emotional phantom that would not have meaningfully harmed them.

Discriminant Validity Issues: Critics also challenge whether anticipatory regret is truly distinct from related constructs such as generalized anxiety, risk aversion, loss aversion, or anticipated disappointment. When an individual claims, “I chose the conservative option because of anticipatory regret,” critics suggest this may simply be post-hoc rationalization for baseline neuroticism, fear of failure, or high ambiguity aversion. Isolating the unique predictive power of counterfactual self-blame apart from loss aversion as modeled in Prospect Theory requires exceptionally rigorous control conditions that are not always maintained in field experiments.

14. Related Terms & Distinctions

To avoid conceptual ambiguity, anticipatory regret must be systematically distinguished from neighboring constructs:

• Experienced Regret: A backward-looking, post-decisional negative emotion experienced after receiving feedback that an unchosen alternative yielded a superior outcome. Anticipatory regret is forward-looking and prospective, occurring exclusively prior to commitment.
• Anticipated Disappointment: An anticipated negative affective reaction to an outcome that falls below expectations due to external factors, bad luck, or states of nature. Unlike regret, disappointment does not entail personal agency, counterfactual self-blame, or internal causal attribution.
• Loss Aversion: The principle from Prospect Theory asserting that losses loom larger than equivalent gains. While loss aversion focuses on the asymmetric psychological value of objective payoffs, anticipatory regret focuses specifically on the prospective psychological pain of realizing that one made the wrong choice.
• Pre-Decisional Anxiety: A diffuse, physiological state of apprehension and nervous arousal regarding future uncertainty. Anticipatory regret has a far more structured, narrative cognitive component, rooted specifically in upward counterfactual comparisons and perceived culpability.
• Fear of Missing Out (FOMO): A modern colloquial and clinical construct characterized by pervasive apprehension that others are having rewarding experiences from which one is absent. FOMO functions primarily as an acute, real-time variant of the anticipatory regret of omission.
• Buyer’s Remorse: A specific manifestation of experienced post-purchase regret, often characterized by anxiety, guilt, and counterfactual questioning immediately following a substantial financial commitment.

15. Summary & Key Takeaways

Anticipatory regret is a potent psychological bridge linking future emotional forecasts with current actions. Its essential characteristics include:

• Prospective Self-Regulation: It acts as an internal feedback loop, compelling decision-makers to evaluate the defensibility and emotional consequences of their choices prior to execution.
• Dependent on Agency and Feedback: The construct intensifies when individuals feel personally responsible for an outcome and expect to observe the results of the paths they rejected.
• Dual Operational Mechanics: It can drive conservatism and status quo maintenance (avoiding regrets of commission) or rapid intervention and risk-taking (avoiding regrets of omission), dictated by narrative framing and temporal horizons.
• Affective Forecasting Vulnerability: While functionally adaptive for avoiding catastrophic blunders, it frequently misleads individuals because people routinely overestimate how intense and long-lasting their future sorrow will be.

Ultimately, anticipatory regret highlights the profoundly human nature of decision-making. Far from operating as detached, utility-maximizing automatons, human beings continually weave hypothetical futures, navigating the present by projecting tomorrow’s sorrows to preserve psychological equilibrium today.

References

• Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961–981. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.30.5.961
• Camille, N., Coricelli, G., Sallet, J., Pradat-Diehl, P., Duhamel, J. R., & Sirigu, A. (2004). The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in the experience of regret. Science, 304(5674), 1167–1170. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094550
• Connolly, T., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 212–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00203
• Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1995). The experience of regret—what, when, and why. Psychological Review, 102(2), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.379
• Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136
• Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
• Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative approach to rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92(368), 805–824. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232669
• Richard, R., van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. (1996). Anticipated regret and time perspective: Impact on planned behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(1), 107–119. 3.0.CO;2-5″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199601)26:1<107::AID-EJSP741>3.0.CO;2-5
• Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Augmenting the theory of planned behavior: Anticipated regret and planned health behaviors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164223
• Zeelenberg, M. (1999). Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(2), 93–106. 3.0.CO;2-S” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199906)12:2<93::AID-BDM311>3.0.CO;2-S