Ir para o conteúdo
Likelier

Arrependimento de agir vs. não agir

Deliberar extensivamente antes de uma decisão vs decidir rapidamente e seguir em frente

Se você agir

Decidir rápido (satisfazer-se com o suficiente)

20%

Se você não agir

Pensar demais (buscar o ótimo)

52%

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


Estilo de vida

Última revisão 2026-04-26

Qualidade das evidências 4.25/5

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
4/5
D3 Precisão da taxa de arrependimento
2/5
D4 Comparabilidade das fontes
5/5
D5 Padrão de Gilovich
5/5
D6 Qualidade da prosa
5/5
D7 Completude das ressalvas
5/5
D8 Qualidade da amostra
3/5
Média 4.25/5
Two desks side by side, one covered in sticky notes and open notebooks, the other clear with a single signed document.

Arrependimento por ação

Decidir rápido (satisfazer-se com o suficiente)

20%

~20% dos satisficers acima do ponto médio da Escala de Arrependimento (derivado de pontuações de escala contínua, não uma pesquisa binária)

Estudantes universitários e adultos nos EUA, sete amostras de conveniência

retrospectivo, sem prazo fixo

Arrependimento por omissão

Pensar demais (buscar o ótimo)

52%

~52% dos maximizers acima do ponto médio da Escala de Arrependimento (derivado de pontuações de escala contínua, não uma pesquisa binária)

Estudantes universitários e adultos nos EUA, sete amostras de conveniência

retrospectivo, sem prazo fixo

% 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.

lifestyle

Maximizar vs satisfazer

% se arrependem desta escolha

A ação predomina

Arrependimento de ação 3.0× maior

lifestyle

Procrastinação

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 4.7× maior

lifestyle

Pedir desculpa

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 2.0× maior

lifestyle

Seguir pais vs. caminho próprio

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 3.2× maior

lifestyle

Masturbação vs NoFap

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 3.0× maior

Saúde

Hábitos de exercício

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 13.4× maior

lifestyle

Aberto vs monogâmico

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 1.4× maior

lifestyle

Desenvolvimento contínuo vs estagnar

% se arrependem desta escolha

A inação predomina

Arrependimento de inação 1.5× maior

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.

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

    See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

    Estatística
    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
    Trecho
    “"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." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2002-12-01
    Acessado
    2026-04-26
    Verificação
    Trecho obtido novamente de forma independente e confirmado palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada durante nossa auditoria de fundamentação.
    Cálculo
    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 →

    Estatística
    Satisficers reported higher job satisfaction and less negative affect than maximizers despite obtaining lower starting salaries
    Trecho
    “"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." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2006-02-01
    Acessado
    2026-04-26
    Cálculo
    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.

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.

  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 →

    Estatística
    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
    Trecho
    “"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." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2002-12-01
    Acessado
    2026-04-26
    Cálculo
    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
    Estatística
    Abstract ruminators reported significantly more post-decisional regret than concrete thinkers across two studies (Study 1: n = 58; Study 2: n = 70)
    Trecho
    “"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)." ”
    Dados da fonte de
    2018-09-01
    Acessado
    2026-04-26
    Cálculo
    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.

Ressalvas

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.

Dados brutos: /api/decisions.json

Vistos recentemente neste dispositivo