Dữ liệu đại diện — không có cuộc khảo sát trực tiếp nào về sự hối tiếc cho quyết định này. Tỷ lệ được lấy từ điểm hài lòng và dữ liệu rào cản tiếp cận thay vì câu hỏi trực tiếp về sự hối tiếc. Xem cảnh báo bên dưới.
Hối hận vì hành động
Tham gia biểu tình công khai
16%
Không tồn tại khảo sát trực tiếp nào về hối tiếc khi tham gia biểu tình; con số hiển thị là tỷ lệ hối tiếc-hành động dài hạn chung (~16% nêu một hành động là điều họ hối tiếc nhất, Gilovich & Medvec 1994) được dùng làm mức nền thay thế
Người tham gia các cuộc biểu tình dân sự lớn (Euromaidan 2014, nghiên cứu can đảm đạo đức)
hồi cứu, khảo sát sau biểu tình
Hối hận vì không hành động
Im lặng trước bất công
53%
53% người lao động đã từng hối tiếc vì không lên tiếng khi họ có điều muốn nói (chỉ số thay thế từ tài liệu về tiếng nói tại nơi làm việc — điều tương tự gần nhất với sự im lặng công dân)
Người lao động ở Mỹ, Anh, Pháp, Đức — dùng làm tương đồng cho im lặng dân sự
hồi cứu, không có khung thời gian cố định
% hối tiếc về lựa chọn này
Tham gia biểu tình công khaiIm lặng trước bất công
16%53%
inaction dominates — Không hành động chiếm ưu thế — hầu hết hối tiếc vì đã không hành động.
Quyết định liên quan
Các quyết định tương tự về mặt ngữ nghĩa — cùng lĩnh vực, đánh đổi khác nhau.
Gilovich and Medvec’s 1994 study, the foundational research underlying the gilovich_pattern classification used across this dataset, found that in long-term retrospection only 16% of people identify an action as their biggest regret, while 84% identify an inaction. The mechanism is well-established: action regrets shrink over time as people rationalize, repair, or reframe what they did, while inaction regrets persist and compound as the unchosen path is idealized and the reasons for hesitating become harder to reconstruct. For civic protest, this temporal dynamic is particularly pronounced: participation is often a bounded, historical-moment decision that cannot be repeated once the window closes. The EuroMaidan Protest Participant Survey (n = 1,225) documents strong civic identity formation and moral purpose among those who participated in Ukraine’s 2014 protests, consistent with low retrospective regret. The moral courage literature finds a similar pattern: people who act on their values, even at personal cost, tend to look back favorably on those actions.
The closest available direct measurement of staying-silent regret comes from the Resume Now International Career Regrets Survey of 1,000 workers across the US, UK, France, and Germany, which found that 53% regretted not speaking up in a meeting, compared with 38% who regretted having spoken up. Workplace voice suppression and civic protest silence are structurally similar choices: both involve deciding not to speak when one has something to say, against a background of social cost. Civic protest silence is likely to generate even higher inaction regret in retrospect, because the stakes (collective political outcomes, moral legacy) are higher and the opportunity to act is more temporally constrained. Roese and Summerville’s 2005 meta-analysis of 11 regret-ranking datasets found that regret is most durable in domains where people see the largest missed opportunities for growth and self-actualization; civic participation falls precisely in this category.
The limitations of this entry are significant. No published survey directly asks people “do you regret participating in” or “do you regret not protesting during [specific event]?” The action-side figure falls back to the general long-term action-regret rate (~16% of people name an action as their biggest life regret, Gilovich & Medvec 1994), used as a generic baseline rather than a protest-specific measurement, and the 53% inaction-regret rate is taken from a workplace-voice survey; both are proxy constructions from adjacent literatures, not measurements of the same population facing the same decision. The costs of protest vary enormously by political context: staying silent in a stable democracy carries different stakes than staying silent under a regime that jails dissidents. The Chatham House 2020 survey of Belarusian citizens found that one in five urban adults participated in at least one protest during the 2020 crisis despite the risk of arrest, with 83.9% of participants stating they intended to continue, suggesting that even in high-repression contexts participation was not driven by underestimating costs. No retrospective regret survey for those participants was identified, so the entry cannot confirm the long-term regret pattern directly in an authoritarian context. The direction of the finding is supported by three independent bodies of evidence: the Gilovich-Medvec temporal pattern, the career/purpose regret literature, and workplace voice surveys, but the delta should be treated as a directional signal rather than a calibrated estimate.
Nguồn: hành động
Sổ cái xác nhận
Mỗi con số dưới đây là những gì mỗi nguồn đã báo cáo, cùng với trích dẫn nguyên văn mà chúng tôi dựa vào và cách chúng tôi đưa ra con số của mình. Nhấp vào bất kỳ liên kết nào để xác minh trực tiếp.
[1]Sociological survey of Euromaidan participants (Zelinska 2017, cited in Sociology Compass) — EuroMaidan Protest Participant Survey
Nghiên cứu chính
Euromaidan protest participant survey of n = 1,225 respondents shows predominantly committed, ideologically motivated participants; the vast majority report positive civic identity formation from participation.
Trích đoạn
“"The EuroMaidan Protest Participant Survey (n = 1,225) shows that participants were primarily young or middle-aged professionals, well informed, employed, and most had professional or higher education. Most citizens perceived the protests as a battle against the regime, and the social impact that Euromaidan had on Ukrainians was a stronger sense of national identity and unity."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2017-06-01
Truy cập
2026-05-09
Tính toán
Zelinska (2017) cites the EuroMaidan Protest Participant Survey (n = 1,225) as the empirical basis for analyzing participant characteristics and motivations in Sociology Compass 11(4). The survey was conducted on-site during the Euromaidan protests. It measures participant demographics and civic/national identity formation ("a stronger sense of national identity and unity") — it does NOT include a question asking participants whether they regret protesting. It therefore cannot supply a protest-participation regret rate. It is retained here only as context that protest participation coincided with strong civic-identity formation; the displayed rate is NOT derived from this survey. The headline rate falls back to the general long-term action-regret figure from Gilovich & Medvec (1994) below, since no direct survey of protest-participation regret was found in the published literature.
[2]Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (APA) — The temporal pattern to the experience of regret↗ 2 other entries
Được bình duyệt
In long-term retrospection, only 16% of people report greater regret over an action taken vs. 84% who report greater regret over an inaction; action regrets fade more quickly because people rationalize or behaviorally repair them.
Trích đoạn
“"Whereas people tend to experience stronger regret for actions over inactions in the short term, they tend to experience stronger regret for things they did not do over things they did when reflecting back on their lives. In the long term, only 16% reported greater regret over an action taken and 84% reported greater regret over an inaction."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
1994-12-01
Truy cập
2026-05-09
Tính toán
Gilovich and Medvec (1994), JPSP 67(3), 357-370. Study 5 of their seminal paper asked a diverse sample about their biggest long-term regret: only 16% named an action and 84% named an inaction. This establishes the general principle that action regrets (including protest participation) fade with time, while inaction regrets (including staying silent during injustice) persist or compound. Used here as the theoretical anchor for why action-side regret is low for protest participation in particular. Protest, as a morally motivated action aligned with personal values, is a category where post-action rationalization and pride further suppress long-term regret.
Nguồn: không hành động
Sổ cái xác nhận
Mỗi con số dưới đây là những gì mỗi nguồn đã báo cáo, cùng với trích dẫn nguyên văn mà chúng tôi dựa vào và cách chúng tôi đưa ra con số của mình. Nhấp vào bất kỳ liên kết nào để xác minh trực tiếp.
[1]Resume Now (International Career Regrets Survey) — The Road Not Taken: Greatest Career Regrets Revealed↗ 7 other entries
Nguồn tham khảo
53% of workers have regretted not speaking up in a meeting, compared to 38% who have regretted speaking up.
Trích đoạn
“"53% have regretted not speaking up in a meeting, compared to 38% who have regretted speaking up in a meeting."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2025-01-10
Truy cập
2026-05-09
Tính toán
Resume Now International Career Regrets Survey of 1,000 workers across four countries (US, UK, France, Germany), fielded January 2024. The 53% figure represents regret about not voicing an opinion in a professional setting. This is used as the closest quantified analog for civic silence: both involve choosing not to speak up in a setting where one has something to say, at personal social cost. Civic protest silence is likely to generate even higher inaction regret than workplace silence, because the stakes (political outcomes, collective justice) are higher and the opportunity to correct the decision is more limited. The 53% is therefore a conservative lower-bound proxy for inaction regret in the civic protest context. No direct survey of "do you regret not protesting during [specific event]?" was identified in the published academic or survey literature.
[2]Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (APA) — What We Regret Most ... and Why↗ 13 other entries
Được bình duyệt
Education (32.2%), career (22.3%), and romance (14.8%) top lifetime regret domains; the common thread is missed opportunity for self-actualization in high-importance life areas.
Trích đoạn
“"People's biggest regrets are a reflection of where in life they see their largest opportunities; that is, where they see tangible prospects for change, growth, and renewal."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2005-09-01
Truy cập
2026-05-09
Tính toán
Roese and Summerville (2005) meta-analysis of 11 regret-ranking datasets. The finding that inaction regrets dominate in high- importance life domains (education, career, self-actualization) is directly applicable to civic silence. Choosing not to protest during a politically significant moment involves exactly the qualities Roese and Summerville identify as regret-generative: a window of opportunity that closes, stakes that matter to one's values and identity, and a choice that cannot easily be undone. The career and self-actualization domains map closely onto civic identity and moral self-concept, domains in which people report the most durable regrets.
Lưu ý
PROXY MEASUREMENTS THROUGHOUT. Neither side of this entry uses a survey that directly asks protest participants or non-participants whether they regret their choice. No direct survey of protest-participation regret was found in the published literature. The action-side rate therefore falls back to the general long-term action-regret figure from Gilovich-Medvec (1994) — about 16% of people name an action (any action) as their biggest life regret — used here as a generic baseline, NOT a protest-specific measurement. The Euromaidan participant survey is cited only as context (it documents strong civic-identity formation, not regret) and is not the source of the displayed number. The inaction- side 53% is taken from the Resume Now workplace voice survey as the closest available direct measurement of staying-silent regret; the analog is reasonable in structure (voice suppression by social cost) but civic protest and workplace meetings differ in stakes, reversibility, and identity significance. The 37-point gap is likely directionally correct but the absolute values on both sides are proxy constructions rather than measurements. The Gilovich-Medvec paper provides strong theoretical support for inaction dominance in this domain but measures general life regrets, not protest participation specifically. Publication bias affects the moral courage literature: studies are more likely to be published when they document positive outcomes for speaking up, which may inflate the estimated benefit of action. Context matters enormously: the costs of protest vary from minor social discomfort in a stable democracy to imprisonment or death in an authoritarian state. The entry draws on evidence primarily from democratic or democratizing contexts (Ukraine Euromaidan, US and European workplaces); the analysis does not apply straightforwardly to protest in countries where active repression is severe. The Chatham House 2020 survey found that one in five Belarusian urban adults participated in at least one protest during the 2020 crisis, with 83.9% of participants intending to continue — a context where protest cost was extremely high, yet participation remained high, consistent with low action-regret even under repression. No post-movement retrospective regret survey for Belarusian participants was identified.
