Robust satisficing via regret minimizing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Schwartz (2015) argues that a rational decision-maker should not always strive for maximization. In cases where it is not possible to assign probabilities and/or weights to the possible outcomes of choice alternatives, Schwartz argues it is better to engage in robust satisficing, ensuring a good enough outcome when things go awry. Schwartz thus argues that robust satisficing is normatively valid. I focused in my comment on whether it may also be descriptively valid. I propose that in everyday decision making, robust satisficing may occur via regret minimization. Hence, counterfactual thinking and anticipated emotions may be the proximal psychological processes for robust satisficing.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)157-166
JournalJournal of Marketing Behavior
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

decision maker
emotion
decision making

Cite this

@article{5a41615a9e5445f79545a36bfd127db7,
title = "Robust satisficing via regret minimizing",
abstract = "Schwartz (2015) argues that a rational decision-maker should not always strive for maximization. In cases where it is not possible to assign probabilities and/or weights to the possible outcomes of choice alternatives, Schwartz argues it is better to engage in robust satisficing, ensuring a good enough outcome when things go awry. Schwartz thus argues that robust satisficing is normatively valid. I focused in my comment on whether it may also be descriptively valid. I propose that in everyday decision making, robust satisficing may occur via regret minimization. Hence, counterfactual thinking and anticipated emotions may be the proximal psychological processes for robust satisficing.",
author = "M. Zeelenberg",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1561/107.00000010",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "157--166",
journal = "Journal of Marketing Behavior",
issn = "2326-5698",
number = "2",

}

Robust satisficing via regret minimizing. / Zeelenberg, M.

In: Journal of Marketing Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2015, p. 157-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robust satisficing via regret minimizing

AU - Zeelenberg, M.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Schwartz (2015) argues that a rational decision-maker should not always strive for maximization. In cases where it is not possible to assign probabilities and/or weights to the possible outcomes of choice alternatives, Schwartz argues it is better to engage in robust satisficing, ensuring a good enough outcome when things go awry. Schwartz thus argues that robust satisficing is normatively valid. I focused in my comment on whether it may also be descriptively valid. I propose that in everyday decision making, robust satisficing may occur via regret minimization. Hence, counterfactual thinking and anticipated emotions may be the proximal psychological processes for robust satisficing.

AB - Schwartz (2015) argues that a rational decision-maker should not always strive for maximization. In cases where it is not possible to assign probabilities and/or weights to the possible outcomes of choice alternatives, Schwartz argues it is better to engage in robust satisficing, ensuring a good enough outcome when things go awry. Schwartz thus argues that robust satisficing is normatively valid. I focused in my comment on whether it may also be descriptively valid. I propose that in everyday decision making, robust satisficing may occur via regret minimization. Hence, counterfactual thinking and anticipated emotions may be the proximal psychological processes for robust satisficing.

U2 - 10.1561/107.00000010

DO - 10.1561/107.00000010

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 157

EP - 166

JO - Journal of Marketing Behavior

JF - Journal of Marketing Behavior

SN - 2326-5698

IS - 2

ER -