COMMISSION, OMISSION, AND DISSONANCE REDUCTION - COPING WITH REGRET IN THE MONTY-HALL PROBLEM

Do people reduce dissonance more for their errors of commission than their errors of omission? More specifically, do people come to value a disappointing outcome obtained through a direct action more than an identical outcome obtained through a failure to act? To answer this question, the authors created a laboratory analogue of the ''three doors'' or ''Monty Hall'' problem. Subjects initially selected one box from a group of three, only one of which contained a ''grand'' prize. After the experimenter opened one of the two unchosen boxes and revealed a modest prize, subjects were asked to decide whether to stay with their initial selection or trade it in for the other unopened box. Regardless of the subject's choice, a modest prize was received. Results indicated that subjects who switched boxes assigned a higher monetary value to the modest prize they received than those who stayed with their initial choice. Implications for the psychology of regret are discussed.