Terlibat aktif dalam pemerintahan sipil lokal (dewan sekolah, HOA, dewan kota, organisasi lingkungan) vs menjauh dari pemerintahan komunitas
Jika Anda bertindak
Terlibat dalam pemerintahan sipil lokal
16%
Jika Anda tidak bertindak
Menjauh dari pemerintahan lokal
53%
Persentase orang yang kemudian menyesali setiap pilihan. Diagram batang dan catatan lengkap ditampilkan di bawah.
Lifestyle
Terakhir ditinjau 2026-05-30
Kualitas bukti 4.13/5
Skor tinjauan delapan dimensi terhadap
rubrik kualitas
. Setiap dimensi dinilai 1–5.
D1 Verifikasi sumber
5/5
D2 Otoritas & independensi sumber
5/5
D3 Akurasi tingkat penyesalan
2/5
D4 Keterbandingan sumber
3/5
D5 Pola Gilovich
5/5
D6 Kualitas prosa
4/5
D7 Kelengkapan peringatan
4/5
D8 Kualitas sampel
5/5
Rata-rata4.13/5
Data proksi — tidak ada survei penyesalan langsung untuk keputusan ini. Tingkat diturunkan dari skor kepuasan dan data hambatan akses daripada pertanyaan yang langsung menanyakan tentang penyesalan. Lihat peringatan di bawah.
Penyesalan atas tindakan
Terlibat dalam pemerintahan sipil lokal
16%
~16% peserta sipil jangka panjang melaporkan penyesalan (proxy: tingkat dasar penyesalan-tindakan Gilovich-Medvec, diterapkan pada populasi komitmen-tinggi terseleksi sendiri)
Orang dewasa AS yang menghadiri rapat publik lokal (~9% orang dewasa); perkiraan menerapkan tingkat dasar penyesalan-tindakan jangka panjang dari Gilovich-Medvec ke subkelompok terseleksi sendiri ini
retrospektif, jangka panjang
Penyesalan atas kelambanan
Menjauh dari pemerintahan lokal
53%
53% pekerja menyesal tidak berbicara dalam rapat (analog terdekat untuk diam sipil; survei penyesalan sipil langsung tidak teridentifikasi)
Pekerja di AS, Inggris, Prancis, Jerman — digunakan sebagai analog terdekat yang tersedia untuk tidak menyuarakan pendapat dalam pengaturan komunitas/pemerintahan
retrospektif, tanpa kerangka waktu tetap
% menyesal dengan pilihan ini
Terlibat dalam pemerintahan sipil lokalMenjauh dari pemerintahan lokal
16%53%
inaction dominates — Tidak bertindak mendominasi — sebagian besar menyesali karena tidak bertindak.
Keputusan terkait
Keputusan yang serupa secara semantik — area yang sama, kompromi yang berbeda.
Membagikan kisah pribadi sensitif secara publik (media sosial, tulisan, atau media)Menyimpan kisah sensitif tetap pribadi, tidak membagikannya secara publik
The US Census Bureau and AmeriCorps’ 2023 Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement found that 28.3% of Americans aged 16 and over formally volunteered through an organization between September 2022 and September 2023, with roughly 9% (about 23.8 million adults) attending a local public meeting such as a school board or city council session. Median volunteer hours per volunteer fell from 40 in 2017 to 24 in 2023, even as participation rebounded from the pandemic trough. No nationally representative survey directly measures retrospective regret among people who served on local boards or attended local meetings. The action-side estimate of ~16% is anchored in Gilovich and Medvec’s foundational 1994 finding that, in long-term retrospection, only 16% of Americans identify an action — rather than an inaction — as their biggest life regret. Civic participation is a self-selected, identity-congruent activity, so true regret among engaged participants is plausibly lower than that base rate; 16% functions as a conservative upper bound. The Roese-Summerville 2005 meta-analysis identifies “self” and high-opportunity life domains as the categories where regret concentrates — domains where civic contribution sits squarely.
The closest available quantification of staying-silent regret comes from the Resume Now International Career Regrets Survey of 1,000 workers across the US, UK, France, and Germany, which found 53% regretted not speaking up in a meeting, compared with 38% who regretted having spoken up. Workplace voice suppression and civic absence are structurally similar choices: both involve declining to invest social or political effort in a setting where one has standing to speak. Civic silence is likely to generate at least as much long-term regret as workplace silence, because the affected outcomes — local school policy, zoning, public safety, neighborhood quality — are durable, visible, and reconstructable years after the decision window closes. Roese and Summerville’s meta-analysis of 11 regret-ranking datasets supports this directionally: regret concentrates in domains with high perceived opportunity for change and growth, and local civic engagement is one of the clearest non-economic opportunity domains in American adult life.
The limitations are substantial. No survey directly asks adults whether they regret not attending school board meetings or joining the HOA, and neither headline rate is measured on the relevant population facing the relevant decision. The 16% action-regret estimate carries Gilovich-Medvec’s baseline forward to a self-selected subgroup; the 53% inaction estimate borrows a workplace analog. Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” thesis provides theoretical backing for the decline in local civic life but does not measure regret. Adversarial contexts — HOAs known for power struggles, small towns with entrenched factions, school boards that have become political battlegrounds — likely produce substantially higher action regret than the headline rate suggests; no representative survey isolates those subsets. Real costs of engagement (time, social conflict, opportunity cost) fall unevenly: parents of young children, shift workers, and caregivers face higher participation costs than the headline numbers capture, and “not attending” sometimes reflects constraint rather than choice. The 37-point gap is directionally consistent with Gilovich-Medvec and Roese-Summerville but the absolute magnitudes should be held loosely. The direction of the finding — chronic civic absence is regretted more durably than chronic civic engagement — is supported by three independent literatures (action-versus-inaction regret, opportunity-domain concentration, workplace voice surveys) but cannot be confirmed by direct measurement on the relevant population.
Sumber: tindakan
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
1/2 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[1]U.S. Census Bureau — New U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps Research Tracks Virtual Volunteering for First Time
Laporan pemerintah
28.3% of Americans aged 16 and over formally volunteered through an organization between September 2022 and September 2023; 54.2% helped neighbors informally; median volunteer hours fell from 40 (2017) to 24 (2023)
Kutipan
“"More than 75.7 million people, or 28.3% of Americans, formally volunteered through organizations between September 2022 and September 2023, a 5.1 percentage point increase over 2021. The rate remains 1.7 percentage points below pre-pandemic 2019 levels. About 54.2% of Americans helped their neighbors informally, up from 51.7% in 2019."
”
Data sumber dari
2024-11-19
Diakses
2026-05-30
Perhitungan
US Census Bureau / AmeriCorps Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement (CEV) of the September 2023 Current Population Survey, ~45,000 households per biennial cycle. Used as the denominator anchor for civic-participation prevalence: 28.3% of US adults formally volunteer, and roughly 9% (≈23.8 million) report attending a local public meeting such as a school board or city council session per separately reported AmeriCorps CEV figures. The 16% action-regret estimate is not measured directly in the CEV — it is constructed as the long-term action-regret base rate from Gilovich-Medvec (1994/1995), in which only 16% of people identify an action (versus 84% an inaction) as their biggest life regret. Applied to a self-selected high-commitment subgroup (people who chose to attend public meetings or serve on boards), this likely overestimates true regret.
[2]Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Roese & Summerville) — What We Regret Most ... and Why
Terverifikasi
↗ 13 other entries
Telaah sejawat
Meta-analysis of 11 regret-ranking datasets: greatest regret concentrates in education, career, romance, parenting, self, and leisure — domains with high perceived opportunity; inaction regrets persist longer than action regrets
Kutipan
“"Regrets of inaction ('Should have asked her out,' 'Should have become a dentist') are more psychologically 'open,' more imaginatively boundless."
”
Data sumber dari
2005-09-01
Diakses
2026-05-30
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Roese & Summerville (2005), PSPB 31(9), 1273-1285. Foundational meta-analytic finding that long-term retrospective regret is dominated by inactions, and that domains generating the most regret are those with high perceived opportunity. Civic engagement maps onto this self-actualization / social-meaning category. Used as the theoretical scaffolding for assigning a low long-term action-regret rate to people who chose to engage in local governance, since action regrets in opportunity-rich domains fade more quickly than inaction regrets.
Sumber: tidak bertindak
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
2/2 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[1]Resume Now (International Career Regrets Survey) — The Road Not Taken: Greatest Career Regrets Revealed
Terverifikasi
↗ 7 other entries
Sumber referensi
53% of workers have regretted not speaking up in a meeting, compared to 38% who have regretted speaking up; 60% regret not asking for a raise; 58% regret staying at a job too long; 51% regret not asking for a promotion
Kutipan
“"53% have regretted not speaking up in a meeting, compared to 38% who have regretted speaking up in a meeting."
”
Data sumber dari
2024-03-01
Diakses
2026-05-30
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Resume Now International Career Regrets Survey of 1,000 workers across the US, UK, France, and Germany, fielded January 2024. The 53% figure measures regret about not voicing an opinion in a professional meeting — the closest direct quantification of regretted civic-style silence. No nationally representative survey directly asks adults whether they regret not attending school board meetings, joining the HOA, or serving on town council. The 53% workplace-meeting analog is used as a conservative lower bound for civic silence regret, where the stakes (community policy, child welfare, neighborhood quality) are typically higher and the opportunity window more bounded.
[2]Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (APA) — What We Regret Most ... and Why
Terverifikasi
↗ 13 other entries
Telaah sejawat
Greatest regret in long-term retrospection concentrates in domains of high perceived opportunity — education, career, self-actualization; inaction regrets dominate
Kutipan
“"People's biggest regrets are a reflection of where in life they see their largest opportunities; that is, where they see tangible prospects for change, growth, and renewal."
”
Data sumber dari
2005-09-01
Diakses
2026-05-30
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Roese & Summerville (2005) meta-analysis. The "self" domain ranked fifth of six in their analysis and includes self-concept, civic identity, and community contribution. Local civic participation maps onto this domain: the foregone opportunity to influence community outcomes (school curriculum, zoning, local budget) is reconstructable years later and likely durable. Used as theoretical anchor for the inaction-dominant pattern, alongside the workplace-voice proxy.
Catatan
PENGUKURAN PROXY DI SELURUH DATA. Tidak ada sisi yang memiliki survei retrospektif langsung tentang "apakah Anda menyesal menghadiri / tidak menghadiri rapat dewan sekolah / HOA / dewan kota?" 16% sisi tindakan adalah tingkat dasar penyesalan-tindakan jangka panjang Gilovich-Medvec (Studi 5: 16% orang Amerika menyebutkan tindakan sebagai penyesalan hidup terbesar mereka), diterapkan pada subkelompok komitmen-tinggi terseleksi sendiri dari orang dewasa AS yang memilih untuk berpartisipasi. Karena peserta sipil menyeleksi diri untuk identitas sipil dan keselarasan-nilai, penyesalan sejati mungkin lebih rendah dari 16%. 53% sisi tidak-bertindak adalah analog Resume Now suara-tempat-kerja; rapat tempat kerja dan pemerintahan sipil berbeda dalam taruhan, reversibilitas, dan bobot identitas. Kesamaan struktural (memilih untuk tidak menyuarakan pendapat dalam pengaturan di mana seseorang memiliki sesuatu untuk dikatakan, terhadap latar belakang biaya sosial) membuat analog dapat dipertahankan tetapi tidak tepat. Data AmeriCorps 2023 CEV menetapkan kerangka populasi: ~9% orang dewasa AS menghadiri rapat publik lokal, 28,3% secara formal menjadi sukarelawan, dan jam sukarelawan median telah turun dari 40 (2017) ke 24 (2023) — penurunan substansial dalam waktu yang dilakukan bahkan ketika tingkat partisipasi pulih pasca-pandemi. Kesenjangan 37-poin secara arah konsisten dengan Roese-Summerville dan Gilovich-Medvec tetapi nilai absolutnya adalah konstruksi proxy. Tesis Putnam "Bowling Alone" (1995, 2000) memberikan dukungan teoretis untuk penurunan partisipasi sipil lokal tetapi tidak mengukur penyesalan secara langsung. Dilema ini mengecualikan konteks adversarial — HOA yang terkenal karena perebutan kekuasaan, kota kecil dengan faksi yang mengakar — di mana penyesalan tindakan dapat secara substansial lebih tinggi (tidak ada survei representatif dari subset ini). Biaya keterlibatan (waktu, konflik sosial, biaya peluang) nyata dan didistribusikan secara tidak seragam: orang dengan tanggung jawab pengasuhan, pekerjaan shift, atau perumahan tidak aman menghadapi biaya partisipasi yang lebih tinggi dari tingkat headline yang ditangkap.
