Ir para o conteúdo
Likelier

Arrependimento de agir vs. não agir

Contratar seguro de renda por invalidez vs. dispensá-lo

Se você agir

Contratar seguro por invalidez

30%

Se você não agir

Ficar sem seguro por invalidez

80%

Porcentagem de quem mais tarde se arrepende de cada escolha. As barras e o registro completo aparecem abaixo.


Financeiro

Última revisão 2026-05-13

Qualidade das evidências 4.38/5

Pontuação de revisão em oito dimensões segundo a grelha de qualidade . Cada dimensão pontuada de 1 a 5.

D1 Verificação das fontes
5/5
D2 Autoridade e independência das fontes
5/5
D3 Precisão da taxa de arrependimento
3/5
D4 Comparabilidade das fontes
2/5
D5 Padrão de Gilovich
5/5
D6 Qualidade da prosa
5/5
D7 Completude das ressalvas
5/5
D8 Qualidade da amostra
5/5
Média 4.38/5
A pay stub and an empty wallet side by side on a plain surface.

Arrependimento por ação

Contratar seguro por invalidez

30%

~30% dos trabalhadores que cancelaram o seguro de invalidez dizem que não estavam 'usando o benefício o suficiente para valer a pena'

Adultos nos EUA com seguro de saúde ou proteção de renda, pesquisa nacionalmente representativa

retrospectivo, transversal

Arrependimento por omissão

Ficar sem seguro por invalidez

80%

~80% dos trabalhadores sem seguro que passaram por um afastamento por invalidez relatam que não se recuperaram financeiramente por completo

Trabalhadores em tempo integral nos EUA que tiveram uma licença por invalidez e não tinham seguro de invalidez na época

retrospectivo; pesquisados dentro de 10 anos após a licença por invalidez

% se arrependem desta escolha

inaction dominates — A inacção domina — a maioria arrepende-se de não ter agido.

Decisões relacionadas

Decisões semanticamente semelhantes — mesmo terreno, compromissos diferentes.

Financeiro

Recurso contra negação do plano de saúde

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 3.1× maior

Financeiro

Seguro temporário vs. vida inteira

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 6.4× maior

Financeiro

Seguro de cuidados de longa duração

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 2.5× maior

Financeiro

Advogado para reivindicação de lesão de auto

% se arrependem desta escolha

A ação predomina

Arrependimento de ação 2.2× maior

Financeiro

Negociação do aluguel

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 1.9× maior

FinanceiroDireta

Comprar casa

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 5.6× maior

Financeiro

Decisão de empréstimo rápido

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 2.2× maior

Financeiro

Investimento

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 3.2× maior

Riscos por trás desta decisão

As probabilidades que sustentam esta escolha.

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.

Fontes: acção

Registro de evidências

Cada número abaixo é o que cada fonte relatou, com a citação literal em que nos baseamos e como chegamos ao nosso valor. Clique em qualquer link para verificar diretamente.

1/2 fontes verificadas de forma independente palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada

  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
    Estatística
    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
    Trecho
    “"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." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2022-07-01
    Acessado
    2026-06-30
    Cálculo
    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? Verificado
    Disability Insurance Awareness Month: Is Your Income Protected?
    Estatística
    30% of employees who dropped disability insurance cited 'not using the benefit enough to be worth it' as their reason
    Trecho
    “"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." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2025-05-01
    Acessado
    2026-05-13
    Verificação
    Trecho obtido novamente de forma independente e confirmado palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada durante nossa auditoria de fundamentação.
    Cálculo
    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.

Fontes: inacção

Registro de evidências

Cada número abaixo é o que cada fonte relatou, com a citação literal em que nos baseamos e como chegamos ao nosso valor. Clique em qualquer link para verificar diretamente.

2/3 fontes verificadas de forma independente palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada

  1. [1] Guardian Life Insurance Company of America — Role of Disability Insurance in Financial Wellness Verificado
    Role of Disability Insurance in Financial Wellness
    Estatística
    8 in 10 workers who experienced a disability leave without disability insurance say they have not yet fully recovered financially
    Trecho
    “"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)." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2024-01-01
    Acessado
    2026-05-13
    Verificação
    Trecho obtido novamente de forma independente e confirmado palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada durante nossa auditoria de fundamentação.
    Cálculo
    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
    Estatística
    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
    Trecho
    “"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." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2024-05-01
    Acessado
    2026-05-13
    Cálculo
    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 Verificado
    Disability Statistics
    Estatística
    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)
    Trecho
    “"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]. ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2026-03-30
    Acessado
    2026-07-03
    Verificação
    Trecho obtido novamente de forma independente e confirmado palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada durante nossa auditoria de fundamentação.
    Cálculo
    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).

Ressalvas

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.

Dados brutos: /api/decisions.json

Vistos recentemente neste dispositivo