Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 167–188 | Cite as

The role of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk

  • Ivan Barreda-Tarrazona
  • Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutierrez
  • Daniel Navarro-MartinezEmail author
  • Gerardo Sabater-Grande


We present two experiments designed to study the role of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk. In the first one, we face individuals with a dynamic environment in which their decisions, together with chance, determine their future options. We find that previously faced opportunities influence subsequent choices in predictable ways. Having faced worse options in the past significantly increases individuals’ risk aversion and having faced better options reduces it. These patterns are at odds with most existing decision theories, including Expected Utility Theory and standard implementations of Prospect Theory, the dominant models of economic decision making. In our second experiment, we present participants with a similar decision environment, but in which the opportunities they face do not depend on their past choices. The effect of previously faced options on decision behavior in this environment is considerably reduced. This shows that being responsible for forgoing opportunities is an important factor in their influence on behavior, which underscores the relevance of emotions linked to counterfactual thinking, like regret or satisfaction. These results highlight that theories formulated in cognitive terms are not enough to provide an adequate account of the role of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk and uncertainty.


Decision making under risk Path-dependence Reference-dependence Counterfactual thinking Emotions 

JEL Classifications

C91 D03 D81 



The authors would like to thank Michael Birnbaum, Pablo Brañas-Garza, Nikolaos Georgantzis, Ganna Pogrebna, and Neil Stewart for their valuable comments. Financial support by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (ECO2011-23634), the Bank of Spain Chair in Computational Economics (11I229.01/1), and the Generalitat Valenciana (ACOMP/2013/224) is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Baucells, M., Weber, M., & Welfens, F. (2011). Reference-point formation and updating. Management Science, 57, 506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, D. E. (1985). Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 33, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, M. H. (2008). New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 115, 463–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandstatter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113, 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busemeyer, J. R., Weg, E., Barkan, R., Li, X., & Ma, Z. (2000). Dynamic and consequential consistency of choices between paths of decision trees. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 129, 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ordonez, L. D., & Connolly, T. (2000). Regret and responsibility: A reply to Zeelenberg et al. (1998). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connolly, T., Ordonez, L. D., & Coughlan, R. (1997). Regret and responsibility in the evaluation of decision outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creyer, E. H., & Ross Jr., W. T. (1999). The development and use of the regret experience measure. Marketing Letters, 10, 379–392.Google Scholar
  12. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: An experimental investigation. The Economic Journal, 108, 1362–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cubitt, R. P., & Sugden, R. (2001). Dynamic decision-making under uncertainty: An experimental investigation of choices between accumulator gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epstude, K., & Roese, N. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 168–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimenter’s manual. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and consumer decision making: The appraisal-tendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects in lottery choices. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, J. T. (1986). The knowledge of what might have been: Affective and attributional consequences of near outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm Theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 1133–1165.Google Scholar
  23. Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2007). Reference-dependent risk attitudes. American Economic Review, 97, 1047–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lim, R. G. (1995). A range-frequency explanation of shifting reference-points in risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret Theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92, 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 53, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markman, K. D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S. J., & McMullen, M. N. (1993). The mental simulation of better and worse possible worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 603–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (1997). When doing better means feeling worse: The effects of categorical cutoff points on counterfactual thinking and satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1284–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mellers, B. A. (2000). Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 910–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Post, T., van den Assem, M. J., Baltussen, G., & Thaler, R. H. (2008). Deal or no deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. American Economic Review, 98, 38–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Quiggin, J. C. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roese, N. J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 805–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1995). What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 42, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stewart, N., Chater, N., Stott, H. P., & Reimers, S. (2003). Prospect relativity: How choice options influence decision under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsiros, M., & Mittal, V. (2000). Regret: A model of its antecedents and consequences in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tykocinski, O. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1998). The consequences of doing nothing: Inaction inertia as avoidance of anticipated counterfactual regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 607–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tykocinski, O. E., Pittman, T. S., & Tuttle, E. E. (1995). Inaction inertia: Foregoing future benefits as a result of an initial failure to act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 793–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). The theory of games and economic behavior. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2004). Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: A review and new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services. Journal of Business Research, 57, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). A theory of regret regulation 1.0. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 254–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). Regret and responsibility resolved? Evaluating Ordonez and Connolly’s (2000) conclusions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zeelenberg, M., Nijstad, B. A., van Putten, M., & van Dijk, E. (2006). Inaction inertia, regret and valuation: A closer look. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Barreda-Tarrazona
    • 1
  • Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutierrez
    • 1
  • Daniel Navarro-Martinez
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gerardo Sabater-Grande
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics and LEEUniversity Jaume ICastellon de la PlanaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Economics and BusinessUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, and Barcelona Graduate School of EconomicsBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations