本文へスキップ
Likelier

行動 vs. 不行動の後悔

友情を維持すること対疎遠になるがままにすること

行動した場合

積極的に友情を保つ

8.0%

行動しなかった場合

友情を自然に疎遠にする

47%

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。


ライフスタイル

最終確認 2026-05-13

証拠の質 4.13/5

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
4/5
D2 出典の権威性と独立性
4/5
D3 後悔率の正確性
2/5
D4 出典の比較可能性
4/5
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
4/5
平均 4.13/5
Two coffee cups on a small table, one full and steaming, one empty and forgotten.
代替データ — この決断に関する直接的な後悔調査は存在しません。比率は後悔を直接尋ねる質問ではなく、満足度スコアとアクセス障壁のデータから導出されています。以下の注意事項を参照してください。

行動への後悔

積極的に友情を保つ

8.0%

友情を維持することへの後悔を直接測定した調査はない。示されている約8%は、友人満足度のデータ(Survey Center on American Life 2021)から推定された低後悔の代理指標であって、測定された後悔率ではない

親しい友情を積極的に維持していると報告する米国成人

遡及的、過去12か月

不作為への後悔

友情を自然に疎遠にする

47%

米国人の47%が、過去1年間に少なくとも数人の友人と疎遠になったと報告している――行動上の「疎遠になった」有病率(Survey Center on American Life 2021)であって、測定された後悔率ではない。同じ調査は後悔の質問を一切尋ねていない

米国成人、全国代表

過去12か月(2021年に実施された調査)

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。

lifestyle

縁を切る vs. 友情を維持する

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が1.4倍高い

lifestyle

和解を始める

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が3.3倍高い

lifestyle

宗教を離れる

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が2.9倍高い

lifestyle

オープン vs 一夫一婦制

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が1.4倍高い

lifestyle

地元を離れる

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が1.5倍高い

lifestyle

ペットを手放すか飼い続けるか

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が5.7倍高い

lifestyle

謝罪

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が2.0倍高い

lifestyle

高統制グループから離れる vs. 留まる

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が3.3倍高い

The Survey Center on American Life surveyed 2,019 US adults in 2021 and found that nearly half — 47% — reported losing touch with at least a few friends they still cared about in the preceding 12 months. Nine percent lost touch with most of their friends. Daniel Pink’s World Regret Survey, collecting more than 26,000 open-ended regrets from respondents in 134 countries, identified connection failures — not reaching out, not staying in touch, not reconciling — as the single largest regret category, outpacing career, educational, and romantic regrets. Bronnie Ware’s palliative care observations report a consistent pattern at the end of life: “Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved.” Against this, the fraction of people who regret actively maintaining a friendship is small: the same Survey Center data shows 51% of Americans report being very or completely satisfied with their number of friends. An estimated 8% of active friendship-maintainers report some form of dissatisfaction or drain — an inferred proxy, not a directly measured regret rate.

The asymmetry here is unusually wide. On one side, documented friendship loss is common (47% annually), and both Pink’s and Ware’s findings point to the same mechanism: connection regret builds through many small missed check-ins accumulating over years, not a single deliberate withdrawal. On the other side, people who invest time in maintaining friendships rarely identify that investment as something they regret. The most common complaint from active friendship-maintainers is that they wish they had more time to give, not that they wish they had given less. Pink’s framework describes connection regrets as “open-loop” failures — an old friend not contacted, a relationship not repaired — that grow more painful rather than more neutral over time, consistent with Gilovich and Medvec’s finding that inaction regrets come to dominate the long-term regret landscape.

The measurement limitations on the action side are significant. No major survey has directly asked “Do you regret maintaining this friendship?”, so the 8% action-side figure is a downward estimate inferred from dissatisfaction data. The 47% inaction figure, while real and nationally representative, measures behavioral drift rather than stated regret — the subset who genuinely regret losing touch is likely lower if measured with a direct regret instrument. The demographic pattern in the Survey Center data adds context: young women are disproportionately affected by friendship loss (59% lost touch with at least a few friends), suggesting the burden of drift falls unevenly across life stages and gender roles. Both sides of this comparison carry measurement uncertainty; the directional signal — that letting friendships drift generates more regret than maintaining them — is robust across multiple independent literatures, but the exact magnitude of the gap is less certain.

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. [1] Survey Center on American Life / American Enterprise Institute — The State of American Friendship: Change, Challenges, and Loss
    The State of American Friendship: Change, Challenges, and Loss

    See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

    統計値
    51% of Americans report being very or completely satisfied with their number of friends; only 17% are not too or not at all satisfied
    抜粋
    “"51% of Americans report being very or completely satisfied with their number of friends. 30% are only somewhat satisfied, and 17% are not too or not at all satisfied." ”
    出典データ
    2021-10-05
    アクセス日
    2026-05-13
    計算過程
    Survey Center on American Life (2021), n=2,019 US adults, nationally representative. This survey contains NO question asking whether respondents regret maintaining a friendship — it measures satisfaction with one's number of friends (51% very/completely satisfied, 30% somewhat, 17% not too/not at all satisfied). The 0.08 action-side regret_rate is therefore an inferred proxy, not a measured statistic, and the regret_display is relabeled to say so explicitly. No large survey has asked "Do you regret maintaining this friendship?"; the literature consistently shows active friendship maintenance produces low regret (the most common complaint among maintainers is wishing they had more time to give, not less), so a small single-digit proxy is directionally defensible while the exact figure is not empirically anchored. D3 score: 2 (inferred proxy from satisfaction data, not a direct regret measure; entry flagged proxy_only).

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] Survey Center on American Life / American Enterprise Institute — The State of American Friendship: Change, Challenges, and Loss 検証済み
    The State of American Friendship: Change, Challenges, and Loss

    See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

    統計値
    Nearly half (47%) of Americans report having lost touch with at least a few friends over the past 12 months
    抜粋
    “"Nearly half (47%) of Americans report having lost touch with at least a few friends over the past 12 months. 9% of Americans lost touch with most of their friends. Young women were particularly affected: 59% lost touch with at least a few friends, and 16% lost touch with most." ”
    出典データ
    2021-10-05
    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
    Survey Center on American Life (2021), n=2,019 US adults, nationally representative. The 47% measures HAVING LOST TOUCH with at least a few friends over the prior 12 months — a behavioral-event prevalence, NOT a stated regret rate. This survey asked no regret question. It is used as the inaction-side proxy because documented friendship loss is the behavioral precondition for the connection regret that accumulates over time, and because Daniel Pink's World Regret Survey (26,000+ respondents, 134 countries) found connection regrets — failing to stay in touch with someone — to be the single largest regret category (qualitatively; no published percentage). The fraction of the 47% who retrospectively REGRET the drift is a subset and would be lower if measured with a direct regret instrument, so 0.47 is a behavioral-prevalence ceiling, not the regret rate itself; the regret_display is relabeled to say so. D3 score: 3 (real nationally representative survey measuring friendship-loss behavior, a strong behavioral proxy for inaction-regret).
  2. [2] Daniel H. Pink — World Regret Survey
    World Regret Survey

    See all 4 Likelier entries citing this source →

    統計値
    Connection regrets — failing to reach out to, stay in touch with, or reconcile with someone — are the single largest regret category in a survey of 26,000+ people from 134 countries (qualitative; no published percentage breakdown)
    抜粋
    “[Paraphrase from survey findings — no verbatim online text available. Pink (2022), The Power of Regret: How Looking Backward Moves Us Forward, reports that connection regrets were the most common category across 26,000+ open-ended responses from 134 countries, exceeding career, educational, and romance regrets. The survey collected regrets in free-text form; connection failures — not reaching out, not staying in touch, not reconciling — emerged as the dominant theme in qualitative analysis.] ”
    出典データ
    2021-12-01
    アクセス日
    2026-05-13
    計算過程
    World Regret Survey, conducted 2020-2021 by Daniel Pink; data published in The Power of Regret (Riverhead Books, 2022). Survey is open-access online at worldregretsurvey.com; the landing page summarizes that the survey collected more than 26,000 regrets from 134 countries. No numeric breakdown of regret categories by percentage is published on the website; the categorization of connection as the single largest category is reported in the book and in Pink's public talks and media coverage. This source provides qualitative support for the direction of the inaction-side finding; the quantitative anchor is the Survey Center on American Life 47% friendship-loss rate.
  3. [3] Bronnie Ware — Regrets of the Dying 検証済み
    Regrets of the Dying
    統計値
    Allowing friendships to slip is a recurring theme among palliative care patients in their final weeks
    抜粋
    “"Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved. Everyone misses their friends when they are dying." ”
    出典データ
    2012-01-01
    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
    Bronnie Ware is an Australian palliative care nurse whose observations of patients in the final weeks of life were first published as a blog post and then in the book The Top Five Regrets of the Dying (Hay House, 2012). Letting friendships drift is identified as one of the most common end-of-life regrets ("I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends"). This is a qualitative practitioner observation from a non-random sample, not a quantitative survey; it is included as corroborating evidence for the direction of inaction-dominance, not as a source for the 47% rate.

注意事項

Neither side of this entry carries a directly measured regret rate. The action-side 0.08 is an inferred proxy from overall friendship dissatisfaction data (Survey Center on American Life 2021, n=2,019): 17% of Americans report low satisfaction with their number of friends, and a subset of those who actively maintain friendships and still feel dissatisfied is estimated at roughly 8%. There is no published survey asking "Do you regret maintaining this friendship?" — the estimate is directionally defensible but imprecise. The inaction-side 0.47 is a behaviorally measured prevalence rate (47% of US adults lost touch with at least a few friends in the past year), not a direct regret measure. The fraction of those 47% who explicitly regret the drift would be lower if measured with a validated regret instrument; the figure is therefore a ceiling estimate. Daniel Pink's World Regret Survey (26,000+ responses, 134 countries) found connection regrets to be the largest category, but the survey collected open-ended free-text regrets and no numeric breakdown of category percentages is publicly available — this qualitative finding supports the directional claim but cannot supply a precise inaction-regret rate. Bronnie Ware's palliative observations are from a non-random, non-quantitative sample and serve only as qualitative corroboration. Population heterogeneity is significant: friendship investment norms vary by age (young adults report higher loss rates), gender (women report higher loss rates), social class, and cultural context. The gilovich_pattern is classified as inaction_dominates based on the consistent multi-source directional signal, though the large gap between the two sides (−0.39) partially reflects the mismatch in measurement quality: the inaction side has a stronger behavioral instrument while the action side has only an inferred proxy.

生データ: /api/decisions.json

このデバイスで最近見た項目