本文へスキップ
Likelier

行動 vs. 不行動の後悔

障害所得保険を購入する vs. 購入しない

行動した場合

就業不能保険に加入する

30%

行動しなかった場合

就業不能保険に加入しない

80%

それぞれの選択を後で後悔した人の割合。バーと完全な記録は下に表示されます。


金融

最終確認 2026-05-13

証拠の質 4.38/5

8次元のレビュー評価。基準は 品質ルーブリック 。各次元は1〜5で評価。

D1 出典の検証
5/5
D2 出典の権威性と独立性
5/5
D3 後悔率の正確性
3/5
D4 出典の比較可能性
2/5
D5 ギロヴィッチ・パターン
5/5
D6 文章の質
5/5
D7 注意事項の完全性
5/5
D8 サンプルの質
5/5
平均 4.38/5
A pay stub and an empty wallet side by side on a plain surface.

行動への後悔

就業不能保険に加入する

30%

就業不能保険を解約した労働者の約30%が、「加入し続けるほど給付を利用していなかった」と答えている

健康または所得保護保険に加入する米国成人、全国代表調査

遡及的、横断的

不作為への後悔

就業不能保険に加入しない

80%

就業不能による休職を経験した無保険の労働者の約80%が、経済的に完全には回復していないと報告している

障害休暇を経験し、その時点で障害保険に加入していなかった米国フルタイム労働者

遡及的;障害休暇から10年以内に調査

この選択を後悔した割合

inaction dominates — 不作為が優勢 — 多くは行動しなかったことを後悔しています。

関連する決断

意味的に類似する決断 — 同じ領域、異なるトレードオフ。

金融

保険拒否への異議申し立て

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が3.1倍高い

金融

定期保険 vs. 終身保険

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が6.4倍高い

金融

長期介護保険 vs. 自己資金

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が2.5倍高い

金融

自動車傷害請求のために弁護士を雇う

この選択を後悔した割合

行動が優勢

行動の後悔が2.2倍高い

金融

家賃交渉

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が1.9倍高い

金融直接

住宅購入

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が5.6倍高い

金融

ペイデイローンの決断

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が2.2倍高い

金融

投資

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が3.2倍高い

この決断の背後にあるリスク

この選択の根底にある確率。

Workers who become disabled and lack income-replacement coverage face an abrupt income cliff. The Social Security Administration estimates that one in four of today’s 20-year-olds will experience a qualifying disability before reaching retirement age, yet LIMRA’s 2024 Insurance Barometer Study found fewer than one in five US adults carry any disability income insurance — a gap of roughly 51 million working adults. Guardian Life’s workplace benefits research found that among households that actually experienced a disability leave without coverage, 80% reported they had not fully recovered financially years later, compared with 38% financial harm among workers who held disability insurance during the same event. The asymmetry is large and consistent across data sources.

Regret among buyers is real but structurally different. Insurance economics research documents a “waste aversion” dynamic: Krishnan and Iyer (2022) show experimentally that the thought of having “wasted” premiums when no loss occurs causally reduces the coverage people buy. LIMRA data on lapsed policyholders quantifies the same sentiment — 30% of workers who dropped disability coverage cited “not using the benefit enough to be worth it” as their stated reason. These figures describe an expectation of wasted spending rather than harm; the policyholder who never became disabled is, by definition, the one who avoided the outcome the policy was designed for. Buyer regret is primarily about the cost of an unused option, not about a worse life outcome.

The two regret types are not symmetric. Inaction regret, when it materializes, arrives alongside job loss, depleted savings, and delayed retirement — harms that are concrete and long-lasting. Research published in the American Journal of Public Health found that medically related work loss contributed to over 44% of US personal bankruptcies in one analysis, and households with a disabled adult require substantially more income to maintain equivalent living standards. Action regret, by contrast, is largely anticipatory: most buyers never claim, pay premiums throughout their working years, and may retrospectively question the cost. The evidence does not suggest that buyers who purchased and never claimed experienced lasting harm from having done so. Inaction dominates the regret calculus when conditioned on the event the coverage is designed to address.

出典: 行動

根拠台帳

以下の各数値は各出典が報告した内容であり、引用した原文の抜粋と算出方法を記載しています。リンクをクリックして直接確認できます。

1/2 件の出典が引用元と一字一句一致することを独立して検証済み

  1. [1] Economics Letters 2022;216:110594 / S. Sai Krishnan & Subramanian S. Iyer — Can waste aversion affect demand for insurance? Evidence from experiment and survey
    Can waste aversion affect demand for insurance? Evidence from experiment and survey
    統計値
    Waste averters demand lower insurance coverage than non-waste averters — the discouraging thought of having 'wasted' premiums if no loss occurs reduces the amount of coverage people buy
    抜粋
    “"Evidence shows that people are discouraged from buying fair insurance by the thought that if they do not suffer a loss, they will have wasted their money. We extend this theory to test if waste aversion could lead to a reduction in the amount of coverage sought. We deploy a multimethod design wherein we first run incentive-compatible experiments to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. We follow it up with a survey rolled out to actual buyers of insurance to generate external validity for our results. Our findings show that waste averters demand lesser insurance coverage than non-waste averters." ”
    出典データ
    2022-07-01
    アクセス日
    2026-06-30
    計算過程
    Krishnan & Iyer (Economics Letters 2022;216:110594) establish, via incentive-compatible experiments plus a survey of actual insurance buyers, that "waste aversion" — anticipated regret over premiums paid without a claim — causally lowers the amount of coverage demanded. This source documents the MECHANISM behind buyer regret on the action side; it does not report a quantified regret rate (the action regret_rate is anchored on the LIMRA lapse figure below, not on this paper).
  2. [2] LIMRA — Disability Insurance Awareness Month: Is Your Income Protected? 検証済み
    Disability Insurance Awareness Month: Is Your Income Protected?
    統計値
    30% of employees who dropped disability insurance cited 'not using the benefit enough to be worth it' as their reason
    抜粋
    “"Employees who previously had coverage but dropped their disability insurance cited increasing costs (31%), not using the benefit enough to be worth it (30%), and wanting to reduce overall benefit spending (27%) as their primary reasons." ”
    出典データ
    2025-05-01
    アクセス日
    2026-05-13
    検証
    グラウンディング監査の際、抜粋を引用元から独立して再取得し、原文と一字一句一致することを確認しました。
    計算過程
    LIMRA's 2025 workplace benefits research. The 30% "not using the benefit enough to be worth it" response among lapsed policyholders is the industry's closest published metric to post-purchase regret for disability insurance buyers, and is used here as the action-side regret_rate anchor (0.30). It aligns with the waste-aversion mechanism documented by Krishnan & Iyer (2022). Note that this population self-selected into lapsing — unconditional buyer regret among all current policyholders is likely lower, so 0.30 is best read as an upper-bound proxy among the subgroup most prone to it.

出典: 不作為

根拠台帳

以下の各数値は各出典が報告した内容であり、引用した原文の抜粋と算出方法を記載しています。リンクをクリックして直接確認できます。

2/3 件の出典が引用元と一字一句一致することを独立して検証済み

  1. [1] Guardian Life Insurance Company of America — Role of Disability Insurance in Financial Wellness 検証済み
    Role of Disability Insurance in Financial Wellness
    統計値
    8 in 10 workers who experienced a disability leave without disability insurance say they have not yet fully recovered financially
    抜粋
    “"Among those lacking disability coverage, 8 in 10 say they have not yet fully recovered financially following a disability event. Individuals with disability insurance experienced significantly less negative financial consequences (38% negatively impacted) compared to those without coverage (62% negatively impacted)." ”
    出典データ
    2024-01-01
    アクセス日
    2026-05-13
    検証
    グラウンディング監査の際、抜粋を引用元から独立して再取得し、原文と一字一句一致することを確認しました。
    計算過程
    Guardian's workplace benefits study surveyed US full-time workers, of whom 3 in 10 households reported at least one disability leave in the past 10 years. Among those who lacked disability insurance during that leave, 80% (8 in 10) reported incomplete financial recovery. We use 0.80 as the inaction regret rate — not a literal "regret" question, but incomplete financial recovery is the operational consequence that drives retrospective regret about skipping coverage. The insured cohort's 38% negative-impact rate versus the uninsured's 62% negative-impact rate corroborates the large gap. Total sample reported at approximately 1,492 workers across disability-leave households; the uninsured sub-sample is smaller.
  2. [2] LIMRA — Disability Insurance Awareness Month: Protecting Your Paycheck and Your Future
    Disability Insurance Awareness Month: Protecting Your Paycheck and Your Future
    統計値
    46% of US adults say they need disability insurance; only 18% report having it; 48% of uninsured say they would tap personal savings if unable to work
    抜粋
    “"Less than 1 in 5 consumers (18%) say they have disability insurance. Consumers without disability insurance coverage say their families would resort to tapping into personal savings (48%) or retirement funds (26%) to meet their day-to-day expenses if they became unable to work." ”
    出典データ
    2024-05-01
    アクセス日
    2026-05-13
    計算過程
    LIMRA's 2024 Insurance Barometer Study data. The coverage-gap statistic (46% say they need it; 18% have it) establishes the scale of involuntary non-ownership. The coping- mechanism data (48% would drain savings, 26% retirement funds) illustrates the downstream financial distress that makes inaction the regret-dominant path. Used here as corroborating context, not a direct regret rate.
  3. [3] Council for Disability Income Awareness (CDIA) — Disability Statistics 検証済み
    Disability Statistics
    統計値
    Just under 1 in 4 of today's 20-year-olds can expect to be out of work for at least a year due to a disabling condition before reaching normal retirement age (per SSA probability tables); at least 51 million US working adults lack disability insurance beyond basic Social Security coverage (per an ACLI analysis of 2022 Census data); medically related work loss was cited as a contributor in 44.3% of personal bankruptcies (per Himmelstein et al., American Journal of Public Health, 2019)
    抜粋
    “"Just under one in four of today's 20-year-olds can expect to be out of work for at least a year because of a disabling condition before they reach the normal retirement age." "At least 51 million working adults in the United States are without disability insurance other than the basic coverage available through Social Security." "44.3% specifically citing medically-related work loss as a contributor" [to personal bankruptcy]. ”
    出典データ
    2026-03-30
    アクセス日
    2026-07-03
    検証
    グラウンディング監査の際、抜粋を引用元から独立して再取得し、原文と一字一句一致することを確認しました。
    計算過程
    CDIA's statistics page aggregates three figures used in the body prose that were previously stated without any citation. The 1-in-4 disability-probability figure is attributed by CDIA to SSA's Disability and Death Probability Tables for Insured Workers Who Attain Age 20 in 2025; the 51-million uninsured-workers figure is attributed to an ACLI analysis of 2022 Census data and the 2020 Strategic Business Insights MacroMonitor Household Survey; the 44.3%-of-bankruptcies figure is attributed to Himmelstein, Lawless, Thorne, Foohey & Woolhandler, "Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act," American Journal of Public Health 109, no. 3 (2019): 431-433 -- the body now cites that AJPH study directly for the bankruptcy figure rather than crediting CDIA (a secondary compiler) with having "found" it. Added to ground three previously-uncited body claims; does not change the inaction regret_rate (0.80).

注意事項

The two regret signals are not directly comparable survey instruments — action-side regret is proxied by the stated reason lapsed policyholders give for dropping coverage ("not using the benefit enough to be worth it," a waste-aversion sentiment), while inaction-side regret is measured via post-event financial non-recovery (a consequence proxy, not a self-reported regret question). No published study has directly asked both insured and uninsured workers the same regret question after a disability event, so the regret_delta is an approximation constructed from separate data sources. The inaction group is conditioned on actually experiencing a disability leave — workers who never became disabled and skipped coverage may feel no regret at all, which means the population-level inaction regret rate across all workers is substantially lower than the 80% figure (which applies only to those who needed the coverage). Disability income insurance is also not available or affordable for all workers: self-employed workers, gig workers, and those with pre-existing conditions face access constraints that complicate the action/inaction framing. Premium costs vary significantly with occupation, age, and benefit period. Short-term and long-term disability insurance are distinct products with different elimination periods and benefit durations; the sources above do not consistently separate them.

生データ: /api/decisions.json

このデバイスで最近見た項目