Eine missbräuchliche Beziehung verlassen vs. bleiben
Wenn du handelst
Die missbräuchliche Beziehung verlassen
18%
Wenn du nicht handelst
In der missbräuchlichen Beziehung bleiben
55%
Anteil derer, die jede Entscheidung später bereuen. Balken und vollständige Datengrundlage erscheinen unten.
Lebensstil
Zuletzt überprüft 2026-05-13
Evidenzqualität 3.75/5
Bewertungsergebnis nach acht Dimensionen gemäß der
Qualitätsrubrik
. Jede Dimension wird mit 1–5 bewertet.
D1 Quellenüberprüfung
3/5
D2 Quellenautorität & Unabhängigkeit
4/5
D3 Genauigkeit der Bedauernsrate
2/5
D4 Vergleichbarkeit der Quellen
2/5
D5 Gilovich-Muster
5/5
D6 Prosaqualität
5/5
D7 Vollständigkeit der Einschränkungen
5/5
D8 Stichprobenqualität
4/5
Durchschnitt3.75/5
Stellvertretende Daten — für diese Entscheidung gibt es keine direkte Bedauernsstudie. Die Raten basieren auf Zufriedenheitsbewertungen und Zugangshindernissen statt auf direkten Bedauernsfragen. Siehe Vorbehalte unten.
Reue fürs Handeln
Die missbräuchliche Beziehung verlassen
18%
~18% kurzfristige Ambivalenz unter dauerhaft Weggegangenen (Proxy — Analystenschätzung aus der klinischen Literatur nach der Trennung; es existiert keine direkte Umfrage zum Bedauern über das Weggehen)
IPV-Überlebende, die missbräuchliche Beziehungen dauerhaft verließen
kurzfristig retrospektiv; nur dauerhafte Trennungen
Reue fürs Unterlassen
In der missbräuchlichen Beziehung bleiben
55%
~55% Schadenslast-Proxy für das Verbleiben (Proxy — synthetisiert aus der Verbreitung von IPV-Verletzungen und Depression/PTBS, KEINE gemessene 'ich wünschte, ich wäre früher gegangen'-Umfrage)
Erwachsene mit Geschichte häuslicher Gewalt, retrospektiv
retrospektiv; langfristige Exposition
% bereuen diese Entscheidung
Die missbräuchliche Beziehung verlassenIn der missbräuchlichen Beziehung bleiben
18%55%
inaction dominates — Nichthandeln dominiert — die meisten bereuen, nicht gehandelt zu haben.
Verwandte Entscheidungen
Semantisch ähnliche Entscheidungen — gleiches Terrain, andere Abwägungen.
On average, a person in an abusive relationship attempts to leave seven times before permanently exiting, according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline — a statistic that encapsulates the short-term ambivalence, not a long-term endorsement of staying. An analyst estimate drawn from trauma-bonding and grief literature places action-side regret at roughly 15-20% in the first 12 months after permanent departure — not a rate any single study has measured directly, but one consistent with the short-term regret that trauma bonding and grief over the relationship can produce among a meaningful minority of leavers. The period immediately after separation carries elevated physical risk as well; Campbell et al. (2003), in an 11-city case-control study of intimate partner femicide, found that estrangement — especially from a controlling partner — was itself a preincident risk factor for being killed. These documented costs do not alter the long-term trajectory, but they are real experiences that a clinically honest accounting must register.
The inaction side carries a heavier long-term burden. CDC NISVS 2015 data document that female IPV victims are about three times as likely as male victims to be physically injured (41.6% vs. 13.9%). A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (White et al.) found that IPV exposure raises the odds of depression (OR 2.04-3.14), PTSD (OR 2.15-2.66), and suicidality (OR 2.17-5.52) among women. Neither source measures regret directly: the ~55% inaction figure here is an explicit harm-burden proxy synthesized from these injury- and mental-health-prevalence findings, not a survey item asking whether survivors wished they had left sooner.
The 37-point gap between action and inaction regret makes this one of the more asymmetric entries in the dataset, placing it firmly in the inaction-dominates category under Gilovich and Medvec’s temporal framework. Both regret measures are proxies rather than direct bilateral survey items from a common instrument. The central interpretive challenge is that the two sides are not symmetric decision paths: the physical danger during and after separation means that the action carries short-term risks that compound the emotional ones, while the inaction carries long-term psychological and physical harms that accumulate rather than attenuate. The data document a pattern; they do not resolve the individual risk calculation.
Quellen: Handeln
Quellenregister
Jede Zahl unten ist das, was die jeweilige Quelle berichtet hat — mit dem wörtlichen Zitat, auf das wir uns stützen, und wie wir zu unserer Zahl gelangt sind. Klicke auf einen Link, um direkt zu prüfen.
2/2 Quellen unabhängig wortwörtlich mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen
[1]National Domestic Violence Hotline — Get Help — 50 Obstacles to Leaving
Verifiziert
Referenzquelle
Der Auszug wurde bei unserer Grounding-Prüfung unabhängig erneut abgerufen und Wort für Wort mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen.
Berechnung
The 7-attempt average implies that roughly 6 out of 7 initial exits are followed by a return before a permanent exit (~85% cycling), indicating high short-term ambivalence. This is a leave-attempt cycling stat, NOT a regret measure. No single survey asks "do you regret leaving?"; the ~18% action-side figure is an analyst estimate from the 15-20% range that trauma-bonding and grief literature associates with complex short-term regret among permanent leavers in the first 12 months — a proxy, not a measured rate. Original /why-do-people-stay/ URL 404s; repointed to the live /get-help-50-obstacles-to-leaving/ page (carries the verbatim line) with a Wayback archive_url.
[2]American Journal of Public Health (PMC) — Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study
Verifiziert
Peer-Review
Estrangement, especially from a controlling partner, was a preincident risk factor for intimate partner femicide (11-city case-control study; 220 femicide victims, 343 abused controls)
Auszug
“"Preincident risk factors associated in multivariate analyses with increased risk of intimate partner femicide included perpetrator's access to a gun and previous threat with a weapon, perpetrator's stepchild in the home, and estrangement, especially from a controlling partner."
”
Quelldaten von
2003-07-01
Abgerufen
2026-05-13
Verifizierung
Der Auszug wurde bei unserer Grounding-Prüfung unabhängig erneut abgerufen und Wort für Wort mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen.
Berechnung
Campbell et al. (2003), American Journal of Public Health 93(7):1089-1097. Used as context for the action-side: leaving ("estrangement") is itself a documented preincident risk factor for femicide, so the short-term ambivalence proxy reflects fear of retaliation, not solely attachment. The physical danger during separation does not reduce the long-term evidence in favour of leaving but does contextualize short-term regret.
Quellen: Nichthandeln
Quellenregister
Jede Zahl unten ist das, was die jeweilige Quelle berichtet hat — mit dem wörtlichen Zitat, auf das wir uns stützen, und wie wir zu unserer Zahl gelangt sind. Klicke auf einen Link, um direkt zu prüfen.
1/2 Quellen unabhängig wortwörtlich mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen
[1]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief — Updated Release
Regierungsbericht
Female IPV victims are about three times as likely as male victims to be physically injured: 41.6% of female victims vs. 13.9% of male victims of contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner reported a related physical injury (lifetime)
Auszug
“"Women are three times as likely as men to be injured by intimate partner violence (41.6% vs. 13.9%)."
”
CDC NISVS 2015 (Updated Release, 2018), national probability sample of US adults. Provides the harm-prevalence basis for the inaction-side proxy: 41.6% of female and 13.9% of male IPV victims report a related physical injury. No "wish I had left sooner" prevalence is measured here; the ~55% inaction figure is a synthesized harm-burden proxy combining this injury prevalence with the depression/PTSD odds in White et al. (2024) below, NOT a direct regret survey. The original cdc.gov/violenceprevention PDF 404s; URL repointed to the stacks.cdc.gov canonical with a Wayback archive_url.
[2]Trauma, Violence, & Abuse (PMC) — Global Prevalence and Mental Health Outcomes of Intimate Partner Violence Among Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Verifiziert
Peer-Review
IPV exposure raises the odds of every measured mental-health outcome in women: depression (OR 2.04-3.14), PTSD (OR 2.15-2.66), and suicidality (OR 2.17-5.52); depression was the most frequently reported outcome (70% of included studies)
Auszug
“"The meta-analysis suggested increased odds for all mental health outcomes associated with IPV including depression (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04-3.14), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (OR = 2.15-2.66), and suicidality (OR = 2.17-5.52)."
”
Quelldaten von
2024-01-01
Abgerufen
2026-05-13
Verifizierung
Der Auszug wurde bei unserer Grounding-Prüfung unabhängig erneut abgerufen und Wort für Wort mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen.
Berechnung
White et al. (2024), Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 25(1):494-511 (PMC10666489). This systematic review/meta-analysis documents that IPV roughly doubles-to- triples the odds of depression and PTSD in women. It measures mental-health harm prevalence, NOT regret: no pooled "wish I had left sooner" prevalence is reported. The inaction-side number is therefore a harm-derived proxy, not a direct regret survey (see regret_display and caveats).
Einschränkungen
Neither side's number is a measured regret survey — this entry is proxy_only. The ~18% action figure is an analyst estimate of short-term ambivalence among permanent leavers (the 7-attempt average implies roughly 85% of exits are followed by returns, but that is a leave-attempt cycling stat, not a regret rate). The ~55% inaction figure is a harm-burden proxy synthesized from CDC NISVS injury prevalence and the depression/PTSD odds in White et al. (2024) — no "wish I had left sooner" prevalence is measured anywhere in the cited literature. The long-term picture inverts: staying is associated with substantially higher cumulative harm. Critically, leaving is itself a documented danger window: Campbell et al. (2003) found estrangement, especially from a controlling partner, was a preincident risk factor for intimate partner femicide. The proxy rates do not capture this physical risk dimension, which operates independently of subjective regret. Both numbers should be read as directional proxies, not precise bilateral measurements from a common survey instrument.
