EN
Get the appGet the app

Why We Regret Our Choices

Miqo editors · 3 sources

You're comparing reality with a sketch

Once you've made a decision, you're left with one outcome - with all its inconveniences: a job with a long commute, an apartment with thin walls, an evening that turned out dull. The option you didn't choose stays a sketch. In a sketch, there are no traffic jams, no neighbors through the wall, no awkward pause at the table. You're comparing detailed reality with a sketch that has had everything dull crossed out.

This habit has a name - counterfactual thinking: mentally replaying what happened. "If only I'd left 10 minutes earlier," "if only I'd said yes." On its own, it can be useful: it's how you pull out a rule for next time. Regret is a side effect of this work, not a malfunction.

Regret rarely lives at the edge of the scale. More often, it's here: life is fine, everything's okay - but there's a quiet itch.

How loud it feels depends on how close the other outcome was. In competition footage, silver medalists often look more upset than bronze medalists: silver can easily imagine being gold, while bronze can imagine not winning a medal at all. Psychologists Victoria Medvec and Thomas Gilovich, with colleagues, found this when they analyzed footage from the 1992 Summer Olympics.

Why some decisions sting longer

The more options you considered, the more material there is for "what if": every rejected one stays in your memory as a candidate. This is where the popular idea comes from that having lots of choices makes us unhappier. It's worth pausing here: when studies on this were combined, the average effect was close to zero - in some it was noticeable, in others it disappeared. So the evidence is weak: this isn't a law, but an effect that appears and disappears depending on the conditions.

Another pattern is more noticeable - the one over time. In the days right after, what you did stings more: you said too much, agreed without thinking, left first. But over years, people more often regret what they didn't do - not moving, not writing the letter, not having the conversation. Actions have consequences you can look at and write off. With inaction, only an open question remains, with nothing to close it.

The third factor is reversibility. As long as you can undo a decision, the comparison stays switched on; once the door has closed, your mind starts explaining why everything turned out fine. The evidence here is mixed, but the feeling is familiar: an endless "trial period" is more draining than a final "yes."

You're comparing your outcome - with all its rough edges - to an option whose rough edges haven't had time to appear. The comparison is uneven, and reality always loses.

Test yourself1 / 2

Why does the option you didn't choose often seem better?

Sources

  1. Counterfactual thinking was described by Daniel Kahneman and Dale Miller (1986)
  2. the silver-medal effect by Victoria Medvec, Scott Madey, and Thomas Gilovich (1995)
  3. regret over actions and inactions at different time frames by Thomas Gilovich and Victoria Medvec (1994). On having many choices - a meta-analysis by Benjamin Scheibehenne and colleagues (2010): the average effect is close to zero

Next in the “Decisions” series

5 articles in full on the site, 5 more in the app

All articles

5 more articles in this series are in the app

They are under “Psychology → Decisions”. Free.

Quiz · 22 questionsHow well do you know “Decisions”?