Correction to: The coexistence of loss aversion and regret aversion in decision making under risk (Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, (2026), 10.1007/s11166-026-09476-y)

Abstract

The original published version of this article unfortunately contained errors. The caption for Figure 7 was missing, which caused the renumbering of figure captions and images. The second part of Table 1 needed to be corrected, and Equation 3 also needed to be adjusted. Fig. 7 Difference in proportion of subjects choosing Gamble 1 between partial and complete feedback by gender Fig. 8 Marginal effect on probability of choosing Gamble 1 of partial feedback relative to complete feedback for within-subject design by gender Fig. 9 Proportion of subjects choosing Gamble 1 by pair for partial and complete feedback between-subject design Fig. 10 Difference in proportion choosing Gamble 1 between partial and complete feedback by gender in between-subject design Fig. 11 Marginal effect on probability of choosing Gamble 1 of partial feedback relative to complete feedback for between-subject design by gender This should be corrected to: Fig. 7 Proportion of subjects chossing Gamble 1 by pair for partial and complete feedback treatments (Figure presented.) Fig. 8 Difference in proportion of subjects choosing Gamble 1 between partial and complete feedback by gender (Figure presented.) Fig. 9 Marginal effect on probability of choosing Gamble 1 of partial feedback relative to complete feedback for within-subject design by gender (Figure presented.) Fig. 10 Proportion of subjects choosing Gamble 1 by pair for partial and complete feedback between-subject design (Figure presented.) Fig. 11 Difference in proportion choosing Gamble 1 between partial and complete feedback by gender in between-subject design (Figure presented.) Fig. 12 Marginal effect on probability of choosing Gamble 1 of partial feedback relative to complete feedback for between-subject design by gender (Figure presented.) Table 1 (Figure presented.) This should be (Table presented.) Set L 13 -50 650 250 600 475 512.5 37.5 14 -50 650 275 625 475 537.5 62.5 15 -50 650 300 650 475 562.5 87.5 Equation 3 (Figure presented.) This should be: (Figure presented.) Then Figure 1 should be reduced. The original article has been corrected.