Відкрито визнати серйозну помилку vs. приховати або ухилитися від неї
Якщо ви дієте
Відкрито визнати серйозну помилку
14%
Якщо ви не дієте
Приховати або уникнути серйозної помилки
40%
Відсоток тих, хто згодом шкодує про кожен вибір. Стовпчики та повний реєстр показані нижче.
Lifestyle
Остання перевірка 2026-05-13
Якість доказів 3.38/5
Восьмивимірна оцінка перевірки за
рубрикою якості
. Кожен вимір оцінений 1–5.
D1 Перевірка джерел
3/5
D2 Авторитет та незалежність джерела
3/5
D3 Точність частоти жалю
2/5
D4 Порівнянність джерел
2/5
D5 Шаблон Гіловича
4/5
D6 Якість прози
4/5
D7 Повнота застережень
5/5
D8 Якість вибірки
4/5
Середнє3.38/5
Замінні дані — для цього рішення не існує прямого дослідження жалю. Показники отримані з оцінок задоволеності та даних про бар'єри доступу, а не з питань, що безпосередньо стосувалися жалю. Дивіться застереження нижче.
Жаль за дію
Відкрито визнати серйозну помилку
14%
жодне пряме опитування цього не вимірює; ~14% — це авторський проксі для меншості, чиє визнання дає зворотний ефект (шкода кар'єрі чи стосункам), прив'язаний до доказів напрямку впливу про те, що визнання провини загалом цінується і відновлює довіру — а не виміряний рівень тих, хто визнав провину і повідомляє про погані наслідки
професіонали та дорослі, які розкрили значну помилку
поперечне опитування, 2015; експеримент, 2004
Жаль за бездіяльність
Приховати або уникнути серйозної помилки
40%
жодне пряме опитування цього не вимірює; ~40% — це авторський проксі, прив'язаний до висновку World Regret Survey про те, що моральні жалі (які включають приховування помилок) належать до найінтенсивніших і найстійкіших типів жалю — а не виміряний рівень тих, хто приховав помилку і повідомляє про постійне почуття провини
дорослі, які свідомо приховували значну особисту або професійну помилку
клінічні оцінки, 2021; масштабне опитування про жаль, 2021
% шкодує про цей вибір
Відкрито визнати серйозну помилкуПриховати або уникнути серйозної помилки
14%40%
inaction dominates — Бездіяльність переважає — більшість шкодує, що не діяла.
Пов’язані рішення
Семантично близькі рішення — та сама сфера, інші компроміси.
The peer-reviewed and survey evidence consistently points to admitting a serious mistake producing positive outcomes for most people in most contexts. Ma and colleagues’ experimental trust-game study (Frontiers in Psychology, 2019) found that receiving an apology — an admission of fault — made participants more likely to trust their counterpart than receiving no apology, an effect mediated by perceived trustworthiness; the benefit held for those experiencing less negative emotion and weakened for those still highly aggrieved. A Dale Carnegie Training survey of nearly 3,100 employees across 13 countries (reported in The Public Manager) found that 81 percent of respondents valued a leader who admits when they are wrong, while only 41 percent felt their supervisors could be trusted to do so consistently — the largest importance-versus-practice gap of any leadership behavior surveyed. Neither source measures how often admission backfires on the person who admits, so the ~14 percent action rate shown here is not a measured consequence rate but an author proxy: a small-minority estimate for the subset of disclosures made in hierarchical, punitive, or high-emotion environments where admission is weaponised against the person who made it. It is flagged proxy_only and should be read as a directional estimate, not a survey statistic.
The inaction side has no direct survey: no published study reports the proportion of people who concealed a serious mistake and later report ongoing guilt or regret about the concealment itself. The ~40% rate shown here is an explicit author proxy (the entry is flagged proxy_only), anchored only on direction-of-effect evidence. Daniel Pink’s World Regret Survey (n=26,000+, 105 countries) is the strongest anchor: moral regrets — the category that includes covering up mistakes and acting against one’s own values — make up roughly 10 percent of all reported regrets but are rated among the most emotionally intense and long-lasting of all regret types. Secrecy research synthesised by Slepian (Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2024; ~1,000 participants, thousands of secrets) finds that the more a person’s mind wanders to a concealed matter, the more it harms well-being, with concealment associated with lower life satisfaction, anxiety, and isolation. Both lines of evidence point to concealment carrying a sustained psychological cost, but neither establishes a rate; the 40% figure should be read as a directional estimate, not a measured survey statistic.
The regret_delta of -0.26 reflects the pattern identified by Gilovich and Medvec across multiple decision domains: in the short term, admission is the more painful option — the immediate exposure, embarrassment, and risk of negative consequences are concrete and salient, while the long-term cost of concealment is diffuse and delayed. Over time, this asymmetry reverses. People who admitted mistakes and survived the consequences generally move past them; people who concealed significant errors carry the ongoing psychological burden of concealment and the escalating risk of discovery. The Gilovich inaction-dominance pattern fits this entry well. The main caveat is context: in highly hierarchical or legally consequential environments, where admission carries career-ending or criminal risk, the action-regret rate can approach or exceed the inaction-regret rate, and the entry’s inaction-dominance finding should not be applied to those high-stakes outlier situations without accounting for the specific professional and legal context.
Джерела: дія
Реєстр тверджень
Кожне число нижче — це те, що повідомило джерело, з дослівною цитатою, на яку ми спиралися, та тим, як ми дійшли до нашої цифри. Натисніть на посилання, щоб перевірити самостійно.
2/2 джерел незалежно перевірено дослівно за вказаним джерелом
[1]The Public Manager (Association for Talent Development), reporting Dale Carnegie Training survey — The Value of Acknowledging Your Mistakes
Перевірено
Авторитетне довідкове видання
In a Dale Carnegie Training survey of nearly 3,100 employees across 13 countries, 81% said having a leader who admits when they are wrong is important or very important to inspiring their best efforts, but only 41% said their supervisors could be trusted to do so consistently -- a 40-point gap, the largest of any leadership behavior surveyed.
Витяг
“A recent online survey conducted by Dale Carnegie Training of nearly 3,100 employees across 13 countries found that "admitting when they are wrong" produced the largest gap of any of the leadership behaviors in terms of the difference between its importance to employees and its consistent performance by supervisors. Eighty-one percent of respondents said that having a leader who will admit to being wrong is important or very important to inspiring them to give their best efforts at work, but only 41 percent said their supervisors could be trusted to do so consistently -- a gap of 40 percent.
”
Дані джерела:
2016-01-01
Дата звернення
2026-07-01
Перевірка
Витяг незалежно повторно отримано та дослівно підтверджено за вказаним джерелом під час нашого аудиту обґрунтованості.
Розрахунок
Dale Carnegie Training survey, n=~3,100 across 13 countries, reported in The Public Manager (Association for Talent Development). This source measures the VALUE employees place on leaders admitting mistakes: 81% say it is important, but only 41% see it consistently -- a 40-point importance-vs-practice gap. CRITICAL: it does NOT measure the proportion of people who admitted a serious mistake and later faced negative career consequences or regretted the admission. It cannot anchor a specific action-side regret rate. It supports only the DIRECTION -- admission is broadly valued, and a majority of employees would rather work under leaders who admit error -- consistent with a low action-side regret rate, but the ~14% magnitude is an author proxy disclosed in the regret_display, not a figure from this survey. Replaces a prior citation to a Workstars blog URL that carried a "14% faced lasting negative career consequences" figure the source does not contain (that consequence rate could not be located in any published survey).
[2]Frontiers in Psychology (PubMed Central), Ma et al. 2019 — Apologies Repair Trust via Perceived Trustworthiness and Negative Emotions
Перевірено
Рецензована публікація
Experimental trust-game study (PMC6457316): participants who received an apology (an admission of fault) were more likely to trust their counterpart than those who did not, mediated by perceived trustworthiness; the benefit held for those with less negative emotion.
Витяг
“Participants who received an apology were more likely to trust in their counterpart, compared to those who did not receive an apology, and this relationship was mediated by perceptions of the transgressor's trustworthiness. Additionally, the relationship between apologies and perceptions of the transgressor's trustworthiness was moderated by negative emotions; apologies only improved perceptions of trustworthiness for participants who experienced less negative emotions.
”
Дані джерела:
2019-04-03
Дата звернення
2026-07-01
Перевірка
Витяг незалежно повторно отримано та дослівно підтверджено за вказаним джерелом під час нашого аудиту обґрунтованості.
Розрахунок
Ma, Wylie, Luo, He, Jiang, Zhang, Xu and Evans (2019), Frontiers in Psychology, PMC6457316. Experimental trust-game study on trust repair after a violation. Cited as corroborating authoritative source for the action side: admitting fault (apologizing) generally repairs trust and improves perceived trustworthiness relative to not apologizing -- but the effect is dampened when the wronged party holds strong negative emotion. This supports the DIRECTION that admission is broadly beneficial (low action-side regret) while noting a moderating condition (high-emotion / adversarial contexts) where admission helps less. It does NOT provide a percentage of admitters who regret admitting, so it supports the direction only, not the ~14% proxy magnitude. Replaces a prior citation to Lozano and Laurent (2019, PLoS ONE, PMC6405044): that paper is real but its actual finding concerns whether observers expect OTHER unrelated agents to shift blame, and it does not support the excerpt previously attributed to it.
Джерела: бездіяльність
Реєстр тверджень
Кожне число нижче — це те, що повідомило джерело, з дослівною цитатою, на яку ми спиралися, та тим, як ми дійшли до нашої цифри. Натисніть на посилання, щоб перевірити самостійно.
1/2 джерел незалежно перевірено дослівно за вказаним джерелом
[1]Current Directions in Psychological Science (Slepian, 2024) — The New Psychology of Secrecy
Перевірено
Рецензована публікація
Across studies of ~1,000 participants holding thousands of secrets, the more frequently people's minds wander to a concealed secret, the more that secret harms their well-being -- mind-wandering to secrets is related to lower life satisfaction, anxiety, and loneliness. (The research reports correlational associations, not a percentage of concealers who regret concealing.)
Витяг
“The more frequently people's minds wander to their secrets (outside of concealment contexts), the more those secrets harm their well-being. Mind wandering to secrets increases feelings of shame, isolation, uncertainty, and inauthenticity and is related to lower life satisfaction, anxiety, and loneliness. Frequent concealment of secrets is not by itself associated with stress; the harm comes from repetitive thinking about the concealed information rather than the act of concealment during conversations.
”
Дані джерела:
2024-06-01
Дата звернення
2026-06-30
Перевірка
Витяг незалежно повторно отримано та дослівно підтверджено за вказаним джерелом під час нашого аудиту обґрунтованості.
Розрахунок
Slepian (2024), "The New Psychology of Secrecy," Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 33 Issue 3, synthesizing the secrecy research program (Slepian et al. 2017 onward, ~1,000 participants, thousands of secrets). Cited as authoritative evidence that concealing a significant matter is associated with sustained psychological burden (lower life satisfaction, anxiety, isolation) via repetitive mind-wandering. CRITICAL: this body of work reports correlational associations between secrecy and well-being -- it does NOT report a percentage of people who concealed a mistake and report ongoing guilt or regret. It cannot anchor a specific rate. It supports only the DIRECTION (concealment carries ongoing cost), not the 40% proxy magnitude, which remains an author estimate disclosed in the regret_display. Replaces a prior Psychology Today citation that had been attributed a "40-60% longitudinal clinical" figure the source does not contain (the source is qualitative clinical commentary with no percentages).
[2]Daniel H. Pink / worldregretsurvey.com — World Regret Survey↗ 3 other entries
Первинне дослідження
n=26,000+ respondents across 105 countries: moral regrets -- acting against one's own values, including covering up mistakes -- constitute approximately 10% of all regrets but are rated among the most emotionally intense and long-lasting of all regret categories.
Витяг
“[Paraphrase from World Regret Survey data and Pink, The Power of Regret (2022).] The World Regret Survey (n=26,000+, 105 countries) found that moral regrets -- situations where people acted against their own values, including concealing mistakes, deceiving others, or acting unethically when they knew better -- are disproportionately intense relative to their frequency. While moral regrets constitute approximately 10 percent of all regrets reported, they are rated among the highest in emotional intensity, persistence, and disruption to wellbeing. Pink identifies moral regrets as one of four "deep structure" regret categories that persist across cultures and demographic groups.
”
Дані джерела:
2021-01-01
Дата звернення
2026-05-13
Розрахунок
Daniel H. Pink, World Regret Survey (2021), n=26,000+ across 105 countries. Primary authoritative anchor for the inaction-side proxy: moral regrets (the category that encompasses covering up serious mistakes) constitute roughly 10% of all reported regrets but are rated among the most emotionally intense and long-lasting of all regret types. CRITICAL: the survey does NOT measure "what proportion of people who concealed a mistake regret it" -- that is a category-share and intensity finding, not a rate. Moral regrets as a category are the proxy for direction (concealment regret, once present, tends to be severe and persistent rather than transient); they do not establish the ~40% magnitude, which is an author estimate disclosed as a proxy in the regret_display. The prior derivation that blended a non-existent "40-60% clinical midpoint" with this survey to manufacture 51% has been removed.
Застереження
The ~14% action-regret rate is an explicit author proxy (proxy_only), NOT a measured rate: no published survey reports the proportion of people who admitted a serious mistake and later faced lasting negative consequences or regretted the admission. The available direct survey (Dale Carnegie, n=~3,100, 13 countries) measures only the VALUE employees place on leaders admitting mistakes -- 81% say it is important, 41% see it consistently -- not any consequence rate; and the experimental work (Ma et al. 2019) shows admission broadly repairs trust, dampened only when the wronged party holds strong negative emotion. Both anchor the DIRECTION (admission is broadly beneficial, so the backfire rate is low) but neither establishes the 14% magnitude, which is a small-minority author estimate for hierarchical, punitive, or high-emotion contexts and may understate the true rate in the most punitive professional cultures. An earlier version of this entry attributed a "14% faced lasting negative career consequences" figure to a Workstars blog page that does not contain it, and cited an unrelated experimental paper (Lozano & Laurent 2019, about expectations that OTHER agents shift blame) with a fabricated excerpt; both have been replaced with sources whose excerpts are verbatim. The ~40% inaction-side rate is an explicit author proxy (proxy_only), NOT a measured rate: no published survey reports the proportion of people who concealed a serious mistake and report ongoing guilt or regret about the concealment. The proxy is anchored only on direction-of-effect evidence -- the World Regret Survey's finding that moral regrets (which include covering up mistakes) are among the most intense and persistent regret types, and secrecy research (Slepian) showing concealment is associated with lower well-being, anxiety, and isolation. Both anchor the DIRECTION (concealment carries ongoing cost), not the magnitude. An earlier version of this entry derived a "51%" figure by blending a non-existent "40-60% longitudinal clinical" statistic (incorrectly attributed to a Psychology Today commentary that contains no such number) with the World Regret Survey's qualitative intensity finding; that composite has been removed and the side relabeled as a disclosed proxy. Context matters substantially: in highly hierarchical, politically charged, or legally consequential environments, admission carries higher career risk than the broadly positive direction-of-effect evidence (Dale Carnegie survey, Ma et al. 2019) implies, and the action-regret rate in those contexts may approach or exceed the inaction-regret rate. The entry's inaction- dominance finding applies most strongly to peer-level and interpersonal contexts; in strict performance-management corporate environments, the outcome calculus can reverse. The decision is also not always cleanly binary: many people admit partial versions of mistakes, deflect partially, or disclose to some audiences but not others, making the action/inaction framing somewhat stylised relative to the real-world distribution of behaviours.
