Розпочати парну/подружню терапію порівняно з відмовою від парної терапії
Якщо ви дієте
Відвідував парну терапію
27%
Якщо ви не дієте
Не звертався за парною терапією
33%
Відсоток тих, хто згодом шкодує про кожен вибір. Стовпчики та повний реєстр показані нижче.
Family
Остання перевірка 2026-05-22
Якість доказів 4.38/5
Восьмивимірна оцінка перевірки за
рубрикою якості
. Кожен вимір оцінений 1–5.
D1 Перевірка джерел
5/5
D2 Авторитет та незалежність джерела
5/5
D3 Точність частоти жалю
4/5
D4 Порівнянність джерел
2/5
D5 Шаблон Гіловича
5/5
D6 Якість прози
5/5
D7 Повнота застережень
5/5
D8 Якість вибірки
4/5
Середнє4.38/5
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
Відвідував парну терапію
27%
~29 % пар, які відвідують терапію, розлучаються або демонструють клінічно значуще погіршення протягом 5 років (проксі результату для жалю)
серйозно дистресовані одружені пари в рандомізованих контрольованих дослідженнях парної терапії, клінічні вибірки США
5-річне спостереження після завершення лікування
Жаль за бездіяльність
Не звертався за парною терапією
33%
~42 % пар, які ніколи не відвідують парну терапію, стикаються з розлученням або невирішеним стресом стосунків (проксі для жалю бездіяльності)
дистресовані одружені пари, які не звертаються до парної терапії, з даними результатів з контролів без лікування та даних про розлучення США
поперечно та лонгітюдно; кілька дослідницьких вікон
% шкодує про цей вибір
Відвідував парну терапіюНе звертався за парною терапією
27%33%
inaction dominates — Бездіяльність переважає — більшість шкодує, що не діяла.
Пов’язані рішення
Семантично близькі рішення — та сама сфера, інші компроміси.
Among couples who entered couple therapy in the most rigorous available randomised trial, 26-28% were separated or divorced at the 5-year follow-up, and only 48% showed sustained clinically significant improvement (Christensen et al., 2010, n=134 chronically distressed couples). Among US adults broadly, 66% have never attended or considered couple therapy (Grow Therapy/YouGov, December 2025, n=2,514), and nationally about a third of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 10 years (CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth) — a structural floor for the harm distressed non-attenders face, since deterioration among that sub-population runs higher still. The bilateral comparison points consistently toward inaction dominating: couples who do not seek help rarely improve on their own, and relationship distress compounds over the 2.68 years (Doherty et al., 2021, n=270) the average help-seeking couple waits before entering therapy — let alone for the much larger group that never goes at all.
The action-side data require careful reading. The Christensen trial recruited seriously and chronically distressed couples who volunteered for a clinical research program — a help-motivated, high-distress sample unlikely to represent the full range of couples who attend therapy in everyday clinical practice. Of the 26-28% who divorced within 5 years, many had entered therapy precisely to manage an already-failing relationship; the Grow Therapy survey finding that 56% of divorced therapy-attenders described their attendance as “a final attempt to prevent a split” suggests purposeful rather than regret-laden attendance. At the same time, only 56% of couples who showed clinically significant improvement at end of treatment maintained that improvement at the 5-year mark (Baucom et al., 2015), confirming that gains are not durable for a substantial minority. The 27% action-side proxy is the directly-measured separation/divorce rate; because only 48% of couples showed durable improvement, it likely understates outcome-based regret rather than overstating it.
The inaction side is harder to measure directly because no large-scale survey asks people who never attended therapy whether they regret that decision. The 33% inaction proxy is the CDC/NCHS National Survey of Family Growth probability that a first marriage ends in separation or divorce within 10 years, used as a conservative structural floor: distressed couples who receive no treatment rarely improve on their own, meaning actual deterioration or dissolution among relationship-distressed non-attenders is higher than this all-first-marriage figure. The 6-percentage-point inaction-dominance gap should not be read as a precise effect size; the uncertainty on the inaction side is wide and the true rate for distressed non-attenders is likely substantially higher than 33%. Both the action and inaction estimates share a common limitation: they reflect outcomes, not regret, and outcome data systematically miss the couples who were distressed, never sought help, and eventually experienced relationship improvement that made them glad they never went.
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]Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology — Marital Status and Satisfaction Five Years Following a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Traditional Versus Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy
Перевірено
Рецензована публікація
At 5-year follow-up, 25.7% of IBCT and 27.9% of TBCT couples were separated or divorced; 48% (combined average) showed clinically significant improvement; effect sizes d=1.03 (IBCT) and d=0.92 (TBCT) for satisfaction vs pretreatment
Витяг
“"At 5-year follow-up for marital satisfaction relative to pretreatment, effect sizes were d = 1.03 for IBCT and d = 0.92 for TBCT; 50.0% of IBCT couples and 45.9% of TBCT couples showed clinically significant improvement. 25.7% of IBCT couples and 27.9% of TBCT couples were separated or divorced."
”
Дані джерела:
2010-04-01
Дата звернення
2026-05-22
Перевірка
Витяг незалежно повторно отримано та дослівно підтверджено за вказаним джерелом під час нашого аудиту обґрунтованості.
Розрахунок
Christensen, Atkins, Baucom & Yi (2010), Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2):225-235. PMID 20350033. RCT of 134 seriously and chronically distressed married couples randomly assigned to ~8 months of IBCT or TBCT. At 5-year follow-up, marital status was obtained for all 134 couples; at least one partner in 119 (89%) completed satisfaction measures. Combined separation/divorce rate: (25.7 + 27.9) / 2 = 26.8%, rounded to 0.27 — this directly-measured separation/divorce rate is the action-side regret proxy. The separation/divorce outcome does not capture direct regret: a couple that divorces may still regard entering therapy as the right decision, and a couple that remains together but is unhappy may deeply regret having gone. Only 48% (combined) showed clinically significant improvement at 5 years, so the 0.27 proxy likely understates the share who regret the outcome; it is retained as the sole directly-measured figure rather than inflated with an unmeasured deterioration adjustment.
[2]Journal of Family Psychology (PMC) — Prediction of Treatment Response at 5-year Follow-up in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Behaviorally Based Couple Therapies
Перевірено
Рецензована публікація
Only 56% of couples who showed clinically significant improvement at treatment termination still showed improvement at the 5-year follow-up; substantial between-couple variability in long-term outcomes
Витяг
“"Only 56% of couples who reported clinically significant improvement or recovery at treatment termination also reported clinically significant improvement or recovery at the five year follow-up."
”
Дані джерела:
2015-01-01
Дата звернення
2026-05-22
Перевірка
Витяг незалежно повторно отримано та дослівно підтверджено за вказаним джерелом під час нашого аудиту обґрунтованості.
Розрахунок
Baucom, Atkins, Rowe, Doss & Christensen (2015), Journal of Family Psychology, 28(5):711-720. PMC4324126. Same 134-couple RCT dataset with 5-year follow-up data from Christensen et al. (2010). The 56% figure (of those who improved at end of treatment, only 56% maintained improvement at 5 years) corroborates the action-side durability caveat: even among couples who responded to therapy, relapse is common. This source is included to show that the action-side regret proxy (0.27) may understate outcome-based regret given the high rate of deterioration even among initial treatment responders; it does not independently generate the 0.27 figure.
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]Grow Therapy / YouGov — 2026 Couples Therapy Survey: Growing Stronger Together
Авторитетне довідкове видання
Survey of 2,514 US adults (YouGov, December 2025): 66% have never attended couple therapy and never considered it; 56% of divorced therapy-attenders described it as a final attempt to prevent a split; 19% realized their relationship was no longer sustainable after attending
Витяг
“"71% saw noticeable improvement in their relationship. 19% realized their relationship was no longer sustainable after attending. 66% have never attended and never considered it. 56% of divorced individuals tried couples therapy described their attendance as a final attempt to prevent a split."
”
Дані джерела:
2025-12-22
Дата звернення
2026-05-22
Розрахунок
Grow Therapy / YouGov online panel, n=2,514 US adults 18+, fieldwork December 18-22, 2025, weighted to represent US adult population. This survey establishes the help-seeking context for the inaction side: 66% of US adults have never attended and never considered couple therapy, and 19% of those who did attend realized their relationship was no longer sustainable. The survey does NOT report a divorce or regret rate for non-attenders, so it cannot by itself fix the inaction-side proxy. The inaction regret rate (0.33) is therefore grounded in the CDC/NCHS National Survey of Family Growth (added as a co-source below): the probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce is 33% within 10 years. That directly-measured national dissolution rate is used as a structural floor for the inaction outcome. Because distressed couples who never seek therapy dissolve at higher rates than the general first-marriage population (see caveats), 0.33 is a conservative lower bound, not a central estimate. No large-scale survey directly asks non-attenders whether they regret not having sought therapy; the inaction proxy therefore substitutes the measurable dissolution outcome for unmeasured regret.
[2]CDC / National Center for Health Statistics — Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States (NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth)
Урядовий звіт
Probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce is 20% within 5 years and 33% within 10 years (National Survey of Family Growth)
Витяг
“"The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent... After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent."
”
Дані джерела:
2002-07-01
Дата звернення
2026-07-10
Розрахунок
CDC/NCHS, Vital and Health Statistics Series 23, Number 22 (July 2002), "Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States," based on the National Survey of Family Growth, cited verbatim via the NCHS blog (blogs.cdc.gov/nchs/2007/07/06/7111/). The 10-year first-marriage separation/divorce probability of 33% is used directly as the inaction-side regret proxy (0.33): a nationally-measured dissolution outcome standing in as a structural floor for the relationship harm experienced by couples who do not seek therapy. This is the authoritative figure that replaces the previously-displayed 0.42, which had been anchored to an uncited "~39-42%" estimate not present in this entry's sources. Distressed non-attenders (the sub-population most relevant to this decision) dissolve at higher rates than the all-first-marriage average, so 0.33 is a conservative lower bound rather than a central estimate for that group.
[3]Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (Wiley) — How long do people wait before seeking couples therapy? A research note
Рецензована публікація
First large-sample study on delay: average 2.68 years from onset of serious relationship problems to entering couple therapy (N=270 couples); majority entered within 2 years, challenging the widely cited but unsupported 6-year figure
Витяг
“"We found an average interval of 2.68 years from onset of problems and entering couples therapy, with the great majority of couples entering therapy within two years."
”
Дані джерела:
2021-01-06
Дата звернення
2026-05-22
Розрахунок
Doherty WJ, Harris SM, Hall EL, Hubbard AK (2021), Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 47(4):882-890. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12479. PMID 33411353. N=270 couples attending couple therapy, N=101 in individual therapy for relationship problems. This study is included as the inaction-side corroborating source because the 2.68-year average delay shows that even couples who eventually seek help do so after extended periods of unresolved distress. For the much larger share of distressed couples who never seek therapy at all (66% per the Grow Therapy/YouGov survey), the period of unresolved distress is indefinite. This supports the inaction regret direction: delayed or absent help-seeking is the modal behaviour, and the accumulated period of relationship deterioration before entry (or without it) is the most plausible source of inaction regret.
Застереження
PROXY MEASUREMENTS ON BOTH SIDES. Neither side uses a direct regret survey. The action-side rate (0.27) is the directly-measured combined separation/divorce rate from Christensen et al.'s 5-year RCT follow-up of 134 seriously and chronically distressed married couples ((25.7 + 27.9) / 2 = 26.8%, rounded to 0.27). Divorce is not equivalent to regretting having attended therapy: couples who entered therapy specifically to manage a healthy separation may not regret going, and the 56% of divorced attendees in the Grow Therapy survey who described it as a "final attempt" implies purposeful attendance, not naivety. The inaction-side rate (0.33) is the CDC/NCHS National Survey of Family Growth probability that a first marriage ends in separation or divorce within 10 years (33%), used as a structural floor for the dissolution outcomes of couples who do not seek therapy. Among relationship-distressed non-attenders specifically, dissolution rates run higher than this all-first-marriage average, so 0.33 is a conservative floor rather than a central estimate for that group. No large-scale nationally representative survey directly measures regret among couples who never sought therapy; the inaction proxy therefore unavoidably conflates lack of help-seeking with relationship harm, which are correlated but not identical. The two populations are not directly comparable: the action side draws from an RCT of 134 chronically and seriously distressed couples who volunteered for a clinical trial (a selected, help-motivated, high-distress sample), while the inaction side is inferred from the US adult population including couples whose relationships are not in acute distress. The Christensen et al. sample may overstate action-side deterioration relative to real-world clinical samples; conversely the 0.33 inaction floor probably understates deterioration among the distressed sub-population most relevant to the decision framed here. This entry is distinct from therapy-vs-no-therapy.mdx (individual therapy): couple therapy requires both partners' simultaneous participation, is contraindicated in active domestic violence situations, and has a different evidence base and mechanism of change. The Doherty et al. (2021) finding that couples wait an average of 2.68 years before entering therapy (not the widely cited but unsupported six years) modestly reduces the inaction framing's intensity: the typical help-seeking couple does not wait indefinitely, though most distressed couples never seek help at all.
