Membawa sengketa perdata ke pengadilan vs. melakukan penyelesaian atau mundur
Jika Anda bertindak
Membawa sengketa ke pengadilan
61%
Jika Anda tidak bertindak
Berdamai atau tidak menuntut secara hukum
92%
Persentase orang yang kemudian menyesali setiap pilihan. Diagram batang dan catatan lengkap ditampilkan di bawah.
Keuangan
Terakhir ditinjau 2026-05-09
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
4/5
D3 Akurasi tingkat penyesalan
2/5
D4 Keterbandingan sumber
2/5
D5 Pola Gilovich
5/5
D6 Kualitas prosa
5/5
D7 Kelengkapan peringatan
5/5
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
Membawa sengketa ke pengadilan
61%
61% penggugat yang menolak penyelesaian mendapat hasil yang lebih buruk di persidangan
Penggugat dalam litigasi sipil California yang menolak penyelesaian dan melanjutkan ke pengadilan atau arbitrase
retrospektif, hasil dibandingkan dengan tawaran penyelesaian terakhir
Penyesalan atas kelambanan
Berdamai atau tidak menuntut secara hukum
92%
92% masalah hukum perdata substansial warga Amerika berpenghasilan rendah tidak mendapat bantuan hukum atau bantuan yang tidak memadai (proksi kesenjangan-akses, bukan survei penyesalan langsung)
Orang dewasa AS berpenghasilan rendah dengan setidaknya satu masalah hukum sipil substansial di tahun sebelumnya
lintas-bagian, 2022
% menyesal dengan pilihan ini
Membawa sengketa ke pengadilanBerdamai atau tidak menuntut secara hukum
61%92%
inaction dominates — Tidak bertindak mendominasi — sebagian besar menyesali karena tidak bertindak.
Keputusan terkait
Keputusan yang serupa secara semantik — area yang sama, kompromi yang berbeda.
Membuat wasiat dan perencanaan warisan saat sehatMenunda perencanaan warisan hingga krisis
3,0%35%
Ketidakaktifan mendominasi
Penyesalan tidak bertindak 11.7× lebih tinggi
61% of plaintiffs who rejected the defendant’s last settlement offer and
proceeded to trial received an equal or worse financial outcome than the offer
they turned down, according to Kiser, Asher and McShane’s 2008 analysis of
2,054 California civil cases — the largest empirical study of settlement
decision-making errors in the published legal literature. The average cost of
that error was $43,100. On the inaction side, the Legal Services Corporation’s
2022 Justice Gap report found that low-income Americans received no or
inadequate legal help for 92% of the civil legal problems that substantially
impacted their lives — leaving the overwhelming majority of valid legal claims
without effective legal action. The data points in opposite directions: the
majority of those who fight tend to lose relative to the settlement on the
table, and the overwhelming majority of substantial civil legal problems among
people without resources go unaddressed.
The asymmetry between plaintiffs and defendants in the Kiser study deserves
attention. Defendants made the wrong decision (rejected an offer that turned
out better than the judgment) only 24% of the time, compared to 61% for
plaintiffs. This gap reflects a systematic pattern: plaintiffs tend to
overestimate the strength of their case and underestimate legal costs, while
defendants — typically insurance carriers or repeat litigants with actuarial
experience — calibrate more accurately. The average defendant error cost was
far higher ($1.14 million) when defendants did lose, but the frequency of
error was much lower. For most individual plaintiffs who are one-time
litigants, the risk is that optimism about court outcomes drives rejection of
settlements that would have served them better.
Both proxies measure something real but neither measures regret directly.
The 61% outcome-error rate captures financial inferiority, not necessarily
felt regret — some plaintiffs pursued litigation for non-financial reasons
(vindication, precedent, principle) and may not regret the decision even
after losing on the financial metric. The 92% no-or-inadequate-help figure
captures the scale of unresolved legal problems among people without resources,
not the subjective experience of wishing they had acted. Case type and jurisdiction
affect the action-side figures substantially: the Kiser dataset draws from
California civil litigation and skews toward personal injury and products
liability, which have higher plaintiff error rates than contract or employment
disputes. Inheritance disputes, tax challenges, and small claims have
structurally different regret dynamics and are not well captured by either
source.
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]Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (Wiley) — Let's Not Make a Deal: An Empirical Study of Decision Making in Unsuccessful Settlement Negotiations
Telaah sejawat
Plaintiffs made the wrong decision in rejecting the defendant's last settlement offer in 61.2% of cases (average cost $43,100); defendants made the wrong decision in 24.3% of cases (average cost $1,140,000)
Kutipan
“"Plaintiffs made the wrong decision in rejecting the defendant's last settlement offer or last demand in 61.2 percent of the cases. The average cost of the plaintiff decision error was $43,100. In products liability cases, plaintiffs in 61 percent to 69 percent of cases either recovered nothing or less than the defendant's offer." Table 1 of the same study reports: "plaintiffs committed decision error...in 61.2 percent of the cases. By contrast, defendants committed decision error in 24.3 percent of the cases...there is a substantial difference in mean cost of error between plaintiffs and defendants ($43,100 and $1,140,000, respectively). Given the relatively large discrepancy between the parties' mean cost of error, it is not surprising that the expected cost of error is greater for defendants by a factor of 10."
”
Data sumber dari
2008-09-01
Diakses
2026-07-03
Perhitungan
Kiser, Asher & McShane (2008) analyzed 2,054 contested civil cases in California in which both plaintiffs and defendants made settlement demands, rejected offers, and proceeded to arbitration or trial. "Decision error" = plaintiff's final outcome was equal to or worse than the defendant's last settlement offer. The 61.2% plaintiff error rate is used directly as the action-regret proxy: the majority of litigants who chose to fight rather than settle received an inferior financial result. This is not a survey of felt regret but a direct measurement of outcome inferiority — the closest available proxy for ex-post decision regret in civil litigation. Excerpt and statistic updated 2026-07-03 to add the paper's own defendant-side figures (24.3% error rate, $1,140,000 mean cost of error) verbatim from Table 1 of the same study: the body prose cites both the 61% plaintiff figure and the 24%/$1.14M defendant figures, but only the plaintiff figure had been excerpted here. Confirmed against the full published text (Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 551-591, September 2008): "defendants committed decision error... in 24.3 percent of the cases" with mean cost of error of "$1,140,000" (p. 566, Table 1).
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.
[1]Legal Services Corporation / NORC at the University of Chicago — The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans (2022)↗ 1 other entry
Laporan pemerintah
Low-income Americans received no or inadequate legal help for 92% of the civil legal problems that substantially impacted their lives in the past year; 74% of low-income households experienced at least one civil legal problem in that year
Kutipan
“"Low-income Americans did not receive any legal help or enough legal help for 92% of the problems that substantially impacted their lives in the past year. This study finds that nearly three-quarters (74%) of low-income households have experienced at least one civil legal problem in the past year."
”
Data sumber dari
2022-04-01
Diakses
2026-05-09
Perhitungan
Legal Services Corporation contracted NORC at the University of Chicago for a nationally representative survey of more than 5,000 US households at or below 125% of the federal poverty line. The report's two headline figures are distinct: the 74% is a problem-PREVALENCE rate (nearly three-quarters of low-income households experienced at least one civil legal problem in the past year), while the 92% is the UNMET-NEED rate (low-income Americans got no or inadequate legal help for 92% of the problems that substantially impacted their lives). An earlier version of this entry incorrectly read the 74% as "received no legal help whatsoever"; the report makes no such claim. We use the 92% no-or- inadequate-help figure as the inaction-side proxy: it is the closest published measure of how often a substantial civil legal problem goes without effective legal action. It is an access-gap proxy, not a direct regret survey — many of those unmet problems reflect lack of resources or representation rather than a felt decision to walk away, so the rate likely overstates true inaction regret. No direct survey of regret for not pursuing a civil claim exists.
[2]RAND Corporation — The Perception of Justice: Tort Litigants' Views of Trial, Court-Annexed Arbitration, and Judicial Settlement Conferences
Sumber referensi
Tort litigants' satisfaction was higher with arbitration and trial than with judicial settlement conferences, suggesting procedural participation has intrinsic value beyond financial outcomes
Kutipan
“"The three procedures studied — trial, court-annexed arbitration, and judicial settlement — differed considerably in the procedural fairness and satisfaction ratings they engendered, with arbitration hearings and trials viewed more favorably than settlement conferences. Tort litigants were sensitive to procedural variations, wanting a dignified, careful, and unbiased hearing of their cases."
”
Data sumber dari
1989-01-01
Diakses
2026-05-09
Perhitungan
RAND R-3708 surveyed 286 litigants across three state courts. Used here as the corroborating source for the value of legal participation — it demonstrates that people who engage the legal process (even in settlement conferences) report higher procedural satisfaction than those who do not. This supports the inference that non-engagement (inaction) correlates with lower procedural satisfaction and potentially greater regret, though it does not directly measure inaction regret.
Catatan
PENGUKURAN PROKSI DI KEDUA SISI. Tidak satu pun sisi menggunakan survei penyesalan langsung. Tingkat tindakan (0,61) adalah tingkat kesalahan-hasil Kiser dkk. dari 2.054 kasus California: ia mengukur inferioritas hasil finansial relatif terhadap penawaran penyelesaian terakhir, bukan penyesalan yang dirasakan. Penggugat yang kalah di persidangan tetapi lebih menyukai prosesnya, atau yang memiliki tujuan non-finansial (pembenaran, preseden), dihitung sebagai "kesalahan" bahkan jika mereka tidak menyesal berperkara. Tingkat kelambanan (0,92) adalah angka LSC Justice Gap "tidak ada atau bantuan hukum yang tidak memadai": bagian masalah hukum perdata substansial di kalangan warga Amerika berpenghasilan rendah yang tidak mendapat bantuan hukum atau bantuan yang tidak memadai — ukuran hambatan-akses, bukan ukuran penyesalan langsung. (Angka terpisah 74% dalam laporan itu adalah tingkat PREVALENSI-masalah — bagian rumah tangga berpenghasilan rendah yang mengalami setidaknya satu masalah hukum perdata — dan tidak mengukur non-keterlibatan atau penyesalan; versi sebelumnya entri ini salah menggunakannya.) Proksi 0,92 mungkin secara substansial melebih-lebihkan penyesalan yang dapat ditindaklanjuti (banyak kebutuhan yang tidak terpenuhi mencerminkan kurangnya sumber daya atau perwakilan, bukan pilihan yang dirasakan untuk mundur) atau meremehkannya (mereka yang tidak pernah tahu ada upaya hukum tidak dapat mengartikulasikan penyesalan spesifik). Kedua populasi secara struktural tidak dapat dibandingkan: pihak berperkara Kiser sudah mencapai negosiasi; populasi LSC mencakup semua orang dengan masalah hukum perdata substansial, terlepas dari apakah mereka masuk ke sistem hukum sama sekali. Jenis kasus sangat penting: kesalahan keputusan penggugat tertinggi dalam tanggung jawab produk (61-69%) dan cedera pribadi, lebih rendah dalam sengketa kontrak dan ketenagakerjaan di mana tingkat kemenangan penggugat lebih tinggi. Dalam gugatan kecil, sengketa warisan, dan urusan pajak, dinamika penyesalan yang relevan berbeda substansial dari sampel litigasi perdata California. Pola dominasi-kelambanan Gilovich masuk akal di sini — sebagian besar orang yang tidak pernah mengejar klaim yang valid mungkin mengusung penyesalan jangka panjang lebih besar daripada mereka yang berjuang dan kalah — tetapi kesenjangan data di sisi kelambanan berarti delta -0,31 harus dibaca sebagai arah alih-alih presisi.
