Nature Vs. Nurture: Regret

The debate between environment and biology has raged on in humanity's minds since the dawn of science. Now it is to be noted for the remainder of this discussion that biology, too, can be environmentally altered, and plenty of research exists to back such claims. The most obvious evidence would be neural plasticity, which is a literal alteration of neural biology in response to environmental stimuli. This being said, it still remains true that much of biological function, especially the ones that will be covered in this post, has a largely genetic and natural underpinning. So though biology and environmental factors may collide, it can be extrapolated that most of the biological and environmental discussion leads to the crossroads of Nature Vs. Nurture. As it is one of the primary nexuses of scientific debate, Nature and Nurture, and massive topics in their own right, with much evidence backing both in all sorts of scientific fields, this discussion will focus on the operation of regret as seen through the lens of nature and nurture.

    Nature and, as operationally defined in this case, biology, argues that regret can be visualized through a neuroscience understanding that maps its manifestation between individuals. One such study by Durand-de Cuttoli et al. (2022) found that mice process regret differently on an individual basis. To find this, they used the chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) model through which they found two major categories into which stressed mice could be placed. Firstly were the mice that were stress-susceptible (SUS) and another which were stress-resilient (RES). The SUS mice were much more likely to be susceptible to Regret type I, which made them reject a good offer. Meanwhile, RES mice were far more susceptible to Regret type II, which made them accept a bad offer that was available. This showcases that the biological bins that we may be placed in concerning feelings of regret have tangible effects on the physical state of our lives.

    Whereas, other research by Zeelenberg et al. (2002) makes a more nuanced argument by showcasing how prior outcomes change people's perceptions of regret. They did this by dividing the groups into groups of positive, negative, and no prior outcomes. Then the participants were asked if action or no action would result in the most regret. The positive and no prior outcome group agreed that there would be regret after the action. Whereas, the negative outcome group concluded that there would be more regret after no action. This shows how, in one case from the Durand-de Cuttoli et al. (2022) study, we see that regret has biological backings that cause it to manifest in different forms. Meanwhile, the Zeelenberg et al. (2002) study shows how the context surrounding action changes perspective on regret. Perhaps from this we can conclude that regret, like most neuropsychological phenomena, is a multifaceted one. Which needs to integrate both nature and nurture. It can be argued that Durand-de Cuttoli et al. (2022) showed mechanisms of regret "repentance" may be biologically based. However, Zeelenberg et al. (2002) showed the environmental inducibility of regret perception. 

Zeelenberg, M., van den Bos, K., van Dijk, E., & Pieters, R. (2002). The inaction effect in the psychology of regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.314

Durand-de Cuttoli, R., Martínez-Rivera, F. J., Li, L., Minier-Toribio, A., Holt, L. M., Cathomas, F., Yasmin, F., Elhassa, S. O., Shaikh, J. F., Ahmed, S., Russo, S. J., Nestler, E. J., & Sweis, B. M. (2022). Distinct forms of regret linked to resilience versus susceptibility to stress are regulated by region-specific CREB function in mice. Science advances, 8(42), eadd5579. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.add5579