本文へスキップ
Likelier

行動 vs. 不行動の後悔

決断の前に徹底的に考えるか、素早く決めて前に進むか

行動した場合

素早く決める(満足化)

20%

行動しなかった場合

考えすぎる(最大化)

52%

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 2026-04-26

証拠の質 4.25/5

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
4/5
D3 後悔率の正確性
2/5
D4 出典の比較可能性
5/5
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
3/5
平均 4.25/5
Two desks side by side, one covered in sticky notes and open notebooks, the other clear with a single signed document.

行動への後悔

素早く決める(満足化)

20%

後悔スケール中央値以上のサティスファイサーの約20%(連続スケールスコアから導出、バイナリ調査ではない)

米国大学生と成人、7つの便宜サンプル

遡及的、固定期間なし

不作為への後悔

考えすぎる(最大化)

52%

後悔スケール中央値以上のマキシマイザーの約52%(連続スケールスコアから導出、バイナリ調査ではない)

米国大学生と成人、7つの便宜サンプル

遡及的、固定期間なし

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

最大化 vs 満足化

この選択を後悔した割合

行動が優勢

行動の後悔が3.0倍高い

lifestyle

先延ばし

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が4.7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

親の助言 vs. 自分の道

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

lifestyle

マスターベーション vs NoFap

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が3.0倍高い

健康

運動習慣

この選択を後悔した割合

不作為が優勢

不作為の後悔が13.4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

自己成長 vs 惰性

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

Roughly 52% of maximizers — people who compulsively search for the best option — score above the midpoint of a validated 7-point Regret Scale, compared with approximately 20% of satisficers who decide quickly and move on. These figures are derived estimates, not direct survey responses: Schwartz et al. (2002) found, across seven samples totaling roughly 1,747 participants, a correlation of r = .47 between maximizing tendency and regret — one of the strongest individual- difference predictors of regret in the psychological literature. The study reported means on a continuous scale (full-sample mean ~3.18, SD ~0.79); the 52% and 20% values are rough estimates of the proportion in each group exceeding the scale midpoint. The paradox sharpened in Iyengar, Wells, and Schwartz’s (2006) job-search study: maximizers landed salaries 20% higher than satisficers yet reported more negative affect and less satisfaction with their outcomes. Objectively better results did not buy subjectively better feelings.

The mechanism appears to be rumination. Dey, Joormann, Moulds, and Newell (2018) experimentally showed that abstract rumination — the “why did I choose this?” mode of thinking — amplified post-decisional regret compared to concrete processing, across two studies. Maximizers default to exactly this abstract style: after choosing, they keep rejected alternatives mentally alive, cycling through counterfactual scenarios that erode satisfaction with whatever they picked. Satisficers, by contrast, close the cognitive file. They think less about roads not taken, which means fewer raw materials for regret to build on. The result is a stable pattern: more deliberation, more regret — not because the decision was worse, but because the deliberation process itself generates the regret.

The main limitation is that the regret rates above are derived proxies, not direct survey percentages. Schwartz et al. never asked a binary “do you regret?” question; we converted continuous scale scores into estimated proportions above the midpoint, a transformation that introduces substantial uncertainty. The seven samples were all convenience-recruited. The maximizer-satisficer distinction is a continuum, not a clean binary, and the regret gap narrows in the middle of the distribution. Still, the directional finding replicates across samples, cultures, and decision domains: overthinking a choice does not inoculate against regret but reliably amplifies it.

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] Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice 検証済み
    Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice

    See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

    統計値
    Across seven samples (n ~ 1,747), maximizing correlated r = .47 with regret on a 7-point continuous scale; satisficers scored well below the scale midpoint on regret
    抜粋
    “"Seven samples revealed negative correlations between maximization and happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, and positive correlations between maximization and depression, perfectionism, and regret." ”
    出典データ
    2002-12-01
    アクセス日
    2026-04-26
    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
    Schwartz et al. (2002) reported continuous Regret Scale means and the r = .47 correlation with maximizing, NOT binary prevalence rates. The ~20% figure is our rough estimate of the proportion of bottom-tertile scorers (satisficers) who exceeded the 7-point scale midpoint, assuming approximate normality (mean ~3.18, SD ~0.79 for the full sample). This is a derived proxy, not a direct survey finding. The r = .47 correlation is the primary finding; the percentages are secondary approximations.
  2. [2] Psychological Science — Doing Better but Feeling Worse: Looking for the 'Best' Job Undermines Satisfaction
    Doing Better but Feeling Worse: Looking for the 'Best' Job Undermines Satisfaction

    See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

    統計値
    Satisficers reported higher job satisfaction and less negative affect than maximizers despite obtaining lower starting salaries
    抜粋
    “"Students with high maximizing tendencies secured jobs with 20% higher starting salaries than did students with low maximizing tendencies. However, maximizers were less satisfied than satisficers with the jobs they obtained, and experienced more negative affect throughout the job-search process." ”
    出典データ
    2006-02-01
    アクセス日
    2026-04-26
    計算過程
    Iyengar, Wells & Schwartz (2006) followed graduating students through job searches. Satisficers earned 20% less but reported less regret and more satisfaction. Provides a concrete real-world comparison: quick deciders objectively do worse on salary but subjectively feel better about their choices.

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。

  1. [1] Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice
    Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice

    See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

    統計値
    Maximizers scored significantly higher on the 7-point Regret Scale (r = .47 with maximizing, p < .001); the correlation is one of the strongest individual-difference predictors of regret
    抜粋
    “"Maximizers reported significantly more regret than satisficers. The maximizing tendency was positively correlated with regret (r = .47) and negatively correlated with happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life satisfaction." ”
    出典データ
    2002-12-01
    アクセス日
    2026-04-26
    計算過程
    Same dataset as action side. The ~52% figure is our rough estimate of the proportion of top-tertile scorers (maximizers) who exceeded the 7-point Regret Scale midpoint. This is a derived proxy, not a direct survey percentage. The primary finding is the r = .47 correlation — one of the largest individual-difference predictors of regret in the psychological literature. The conversion to binary rates introduces substantial uncertainty.
  2. [2] Behaviour Research and Therapy — The relative effects of abstract versus concrete rumination on the experience of post-decisional regret
    The relative effects of abstract versus concrete rumination on the experience of post-decisional regret
    統計値
    Abstract ruminators reported significantly more post-decisional regret than concrete thinkers across two studies (Study 1: n = 58; Study 2: n = 70)
    抜粋
    “"In Study 1, participants identified a personally important decision that they regretted having made in the past 6 months, were instructed to think in either an abstract (n = 29) or concrete (n = 29) way about their decision, then rated the extent to which they regretted the decision. Participants in the abstract condition reported more regret than did participants in the concrete condition. Employing the same methodology used in Study 1, we replicated this finding in Study 2 (abstract condition: n = 34; concrete condition: n = 36)." ”
    出典データ
    2018-09-01
    アクセス日
    2026-04-26
    計算過程
    Dey, Joormann, Moulds & Newell (2018) experimentally manipulated rumination style. Abstract ruminators (the style characteristic of maximizers) reported higher post-decisional regret about a real decision they had made. Provides a causal mechanism but no binary prevalence rate.

注意事項

IMPORTANT: The 20% and 52% regret rates are derived proxies, not direct survey responses. Schwartz et al. (2002) reported continuous scale means and the r = .47 correlation between maximizing and regret on a 7-point scale, not binary "do you regret?" rates. We estimated the proportion of each tertile exceeding the scale midpoint assuming approximate normality (full-sample mean ~3.18, SD ~0.79) — a conversion that introduces substantial uncertainty. The primary finding is the r = .47 correlation itself, which is one of the strongest individual-difference predictors of regret in the literature. The Iyengar job-search study provides the clearest concrete comparison: maximizers earned 20% more but felt worse about their outcomes. The seven samples were all convenience samples, not nationally representative. The Dey et al. (2018) rumination studies used small samples (n = 58, 70) with experimentally induced rumination. The maximizer-satisficer distinction is a trait continuum, not a binary — many people fall in the middle where the regret gap narrows. The directional finding (maximizers report more regret) is robust; the specific percentages should be read as rough approximations.

生データ: /api/decisions.json

このデバイスで最近見た項目