Talk:Buyer's remorse/Archives/2013

Paradox of Choice
It might be worth tying some of the ideas in The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less into this. Allenu (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Good but needs sources
I like this article; it's an interesting topic and a lot of relevant topics are discussed and linked. But it lacks any sources whatsoever. It would be nice to back some of this up with citations and direct quotes from psychological professionals (or at least salespeople) who have examined the phenomenon. Deco 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Buyer's remorse laws
The article leaves out one very common use of the phrase - "buyer's remorse laws" this refers to laws that provide a three day right to rescind various types of transactions - especially ones that are frequently made in unequal or oppressive situations such as high pressure sales tactics, in home sales, etc. strangerideas - 9/8/06; sorry still need to work on editing skills


 * Perhaps worth mentioning, yes, though please be careful not to fall into the common trap of assuming that US laws cover the whole world! In Britain this legal right is called a "cooling-off period", and lasts seven days, not three. We don't use the term "buyer's remorse law" at all. See this UK government page for details. 86.132.138.159 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know the US had such laws. Learn something every day. 98.87.69.250 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please also be careful not to fall into the common trap of assuming that US laws are uniform across all states. The federal government does not even have jusrisdiction over intrastate commerce, and therefore many of such laws are state laws that vary througout the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.207.74 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably because after the law was enforced most retailers offered a 7-30 day return policy on all items, which became common practice a long time ago. Most people are so used to these policies nowadays that the law doesn't ever come into play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.131.213 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

antonym?
there is an related phenomenon in which the buyer seeks to justify a dubious purhase. (sure my new car in the shop for repairs three day a wekk, but it's really fast!) i dn't recall the term for it but would like to find it. a brief mention of this would be welcome. -ef —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.214.27 (talk) 16:56, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance
''Buyer's remorse, when evidence exists that it is justified, is a classical example of cognitive dissonance. One will either seek to discount the new evidence, or truly regret and try to renounce the purchase.''

How is justified regret an example of cognitive dissonance? 68.239.78.86 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There can be cognitive dissonance when a buyer feels remorse while at the same time being 'happy' with his/her purchase. The remorse itself cannot be dissonant. That part should be removed. --85.144.53.58 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording is confusing, but it does make sense I believe. If you buy a product that you then learn to be shoddy, for example, you may feel buyer's remorse.  In this case, the cognitive dissonance occurs because you simultaneously are trying to justify your spent money while you know that it may have been wasted.  Basically, you're getting something you know is bad and trying to tell yourself it's good, which is an inversion of the classic sour grapes scenario where you're _not_ getting something that you know is good and therefore try to convince yourself that it is bad.


 * I'm not 100% sure how to reword the current section, but I agree that it should be expanded and/or clarified if we're going to talk about cognitive dissonance. I'd like to hear others' input. Tegrenath (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the wording of the above statement is poor. In fact, buyer's remorse is what occurs when cognitive dissidence fails to resolve the internal conflict. There is a famous study that showed that having subjects wash their hands reduced cognitive dissidence, thereby reducing the desire to over-rate the value of their previous decision.  That is to say, the subjects who didn't wash their hands were even more confident that they had made the correct decision than those who washed up.


 * I also remember hearing about a study that showed that buyer's remorse actually is reduced the more you over-pay for something -- The idea being that overpaying causes even more dissonance, and hence, increases the urge to alleviate those negative feelings by justifying the purchase to yourself (thereby self-healing the feelings of remorse). I'd tried to find a link, but couldn't (and I gotta get back to work :) -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have been looking at an old version of the talk page, I didn't see these two replies to the two IP editors' comments until after I deleted the section. But I recommend leaving it out for now, because as written it just doesn't make any sense.  If Tegrenath or Big Brother 1984 or anyone can re-write it, I have absolutely no problem with something about cognitive dissonance being in there, as long as it makes sense and is based on a reliable source of some kind. Also, as penance for claiming something in the edit summary that wasn't true, I won't revert if someone restores it pending resolution. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
There is a "Dubious" tag on "renounce purchase," but there is no discussion or description of the reason for dispute. Should it be removed? --Stuart Strahl (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Apple iPad
Why is the iPad listed in the see Also section? Seems like spam to me. --Zeppelin55 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't spam, it's someone's idea of being funny. Removing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Significantly Expanding Article
Hi guys. As part of a project for a course called "Online Communities" I'm taking in Cornell University, my group (me and two other people) want to expand this article significantly. We've come up with at least 10 academic sources and we're thinking of adding multiple sections and pictures accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amm257/Buyer%27s_remorse This is our talk page for our temporary article...what we're planning on doing. We're encouraged to seek out to the wikipedia community to give us feedback and help us along the way. It would be great if some of you guys that had previously worked on this article helped us to improve the article. Thanks. Hela47 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Hela47,
 * I saw my name on the talk page link above. I don't do much in the way of actual honest content work, but I'd be happy to help with any admin-related issues. (For example, if the three of you are going to create a draft in userspace, you'll need admin help with a history merge when you go to move it to mainspace, since there's already an article here (don't just copy/paste it to the article page!). Stuff like that.) The page is semi-protected from editing due to vandalism, but it looks like all three of you are already autoconfirmed, so that shouldn't be a problem for you.  In general, if you have a question about something, feel free to ask me, and if I'm not competent in that area, I could likely help find someone who is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply & help Floquenbeam. We definitely didn't know about the history merge so thanks for the heads up. We're actually considering adding gradual information on this page (the buyer's remorse page) itself. Not all at once, but gradual information that we're reading and writing just because the entire process just might be more natural to the wikipedia editing process itself. If you have any thoughts for or against this, let me know. Thanks again. Hela47 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really up to you, but if you want my opinion: if your plan is to edit incrementally, I recommend editing the article directly, mostly for the reason you give: it's a more natural fit to the way WP is supposed to work. You guys add something, maybe someone sees a reference error you made and fixes it, someone else adds an unreferenced sentence and you guys have a reference for that and add it, someone doesn't think you should re-organize it the way you want and suggests an alternative... more collaborative.  Changes to this page would be more visible, and thus attract more feedback, than changes to your sandbox. Although you might not get a lot of feedback, as this page doesn't seem very active. As long as the page isn't left in a state of complete disarray for very long while you're reorganizing it or something, that seems best to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm part of a group from Cornell University that is interested in expanding this article. We're going to be incrementally adding content. Feel free to help us/edit what we put up. Tell us if we're doing anything wrong or if there are any advice/improvements we can make. I just added a section on buyer's remorse and cognitive dissonance today. Hela47 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So we've done some major overhaul with a lot of sources added and the like... But we're left with the old "Causes" section that is unsourced. I'm really not sure what to do with it. It seems like good information and deleting it outright feels wrong, but it's also entirely unsourced and leaving it in feels wrong as well. Ideally we'd be able to source it, but I found that... difficult. So yeah, any thoughts on that would be good. Amm257 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Review comments
This is a good start. You can nominate your work at WP:DYK for front page exposure. Note that this nom has to be done within five days of the move (so, within five days of today). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)