Daniel Pink’s World Regret Survey — 26,000+ open-ended regret narratives
from 134 countries — estimates that roughly 33% of all lifetime regrets
are boldness regrets: chances not taken, risks left on the table, comfort
zones never exited. Pink coded regrets into four categories: foundation
(failing to be prudent), boldness (failing to take chances), moral (taking
the low road), and connection (neglecting relationships). Inaction regrets
outnumber action regrets 2:1 overall, with boldness regrets among the
largest categories. By contrast, moral regrets — the primary action-type
category, where someone did something bold that violated their values or
hurt others — were the smallest at roughly 10%.
The forced-choice laboratory paradigm tells a different story.
Richardson and Gilovich (2023) collected regret classifications from
2,600 museum visitors in Chicago and found the long-term split was 51%
action to 49% inaction — essentially coin-flip territory. The
discrepancy with Pink’s 2:1 ratio likely reflects methodological
differences: forced-choice constrains respondents to pick one type
regardless of emotional weight, while open-ended coding allows the
natural skew toward elaborative inaction narratives to emerge. Neither
method is “correct” — they measure different aspects of the regret
experience.
The practical implication of Pink’s data is that boldness regrets —
the comfort zone left unexited — represent a substantial and persistent
category of human regret, while regrets about having been too bold are
comparatively rare (mapping primarily to the small moral-regret
category). This is consistent with Gilovich and Medvec’s temporal model:
actions that go wrong generate concrete feedback amenable to repair,
while inactions produce only a counterfactual that grows rosier with
time. The caveat is that “boldness regret” encompasses specific missed
opportunities (a job offer, a move abroad) more than a general
dispositional complaint about being insufficiently adventurous.
Sources: action
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
[1]Behavioral Scientist — What Is the Power of Regret? A Conversation with Daniel Pink↗ 1 other entry
Reference source
In the World Regret Survey of 26,000+ respondents across 134 countries, inaction regrets outnumbered action regrets roughly 2:1; boldness regrets were one of four core categories; moral regrets (action-type) were the smallest category at ~10%
Excerpt
“"Inaction regrets outnumbered action regrets by two to one. Boldness regrets — arising from the failure to take full advantage of opportunities as a springboard into a potentially more fulfilled life — were among the most common of the four core regret categories."
”
Source data from
2022-02-08
Accessed
2026-04-26
Calculation
Daniel Pink's World Regret Survey collected 26,000+ regrets from 134 countries via open-ended coding. The 2:1 inaction-to-action ratio from open-ended responses is domain-general but more relevant to boldness/change decisions than forced-choice data. Moral regrets (the smallest category, ~10%) are the primary action-type regrets. We use 10% as the action-side proxy for "regretting having taken bold action" since bold-action regrets map primarily to the moral-regret category (actions that hurt others or violated values).
[2]Royal Society Open Science — A very public replication of the temporal pattern to people's regrets
Peer-reviewed
In the long-term condition, 51% of 1,316 respondents named an action and 49% named an inaction as their single biggest regret in a forced-choice paradigm
Excerpt
“"For long-term regrets, 51% (n = 675) named an action and 49% (n = 641) named an inaction — a non-significant difference that diverges from the original 84/16 split reported by Gilovich and Medvec (1994)."
”
Source data from
2023-06-21
Accessed
2026-04-26
Calculation
Richardson & Gilovich (2023), n = 2,600 total. The forced-choice paradigm found near-parity (51/49) but this format constrains respondents to pick one type regardless of magnitude. Pink's open-ended methodology, which allows for more nuanced categorization, found a stronger inaction skew. We retain this as context but use Pink's domain-specific data as primary.
Sources: inaction
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
[1]Behavioral Scientist — What Is the Power of Regret? A Conversation with Daniel Pink↗ 1 other entry
Reference source
Boldness regrets — chances not taken, risks left on the table — were one of four core categories in the World Regret Survey, with inaction regrets outnumbering action regrets 2:1 overall
Excerpt
“"Inaction regrets outnumbered action regrets by two to one. Boldness regrets — arising from the failure to take full advantage of opportunities as a springboard into a potentially more fulfilled life — were among the most common of the four core regret categories."
”
Source data from
2022-02-08
Accessed
2026-04-26
Calculation
Pink identified four core regret categories: foundation, boldness, moral, and connection. Moral regrets were the smallest (~10%). The remaining ~90% distributed across three inaction- dominant categories. Given the 2:1 inaction-to-action ratio and four roughly distributed categories (with moral being smallest), boldness regrets likely represent approximately one-third of the total. We estimate ~33% as the boldness-regret share. This is an approximation — Pink does not publish exact category percentages beyond noting moral is smallest.
[2]Riverhead Books / Daniel Pink — The Power of Regret: How Looking Backward Moves Us Forward
Reference source
26,000+ respondents across 134 countries; boldness regrets centered on education, career, and romance opportunities not pursued
Excerpt
“"People's deepest regrets fall into four core categories. Boldness regrets stem from the failure to take full advantage of life's fleeting opportunities — to be braver, bolder, and more adventurous."
”
Source data from
2022-02-01
Accessed
2026-04-26
Calculation
Book description and supporting materials for The Power of Regret. Establishes that boldness regrets are a substantial category and thematically map directly to "regretting staying in comfort zone" — missed opportunities for adventure, career moves, romantic pursuits, and personal growth.
Caveats
The rates shown are approximations from Pink's World Regret Survey (26,000+ respondents, 134 countries), which used open-ended regret narratives coded into four categories. Pink reports that moral regrets (primarily action-type) were the smallest category at roughly 10%, and that inaction outnumbered action 2:1 overall. The ~33% boldness-regret figure is our estimate based on the four-category structure with moral being smallest — Pink does not publish exact percentages for each category. The open-ended methodology produces different results than forced-choice paradigms: Richardson & Gilovich (2023, n=2,600) found a 51/49 action/inaction split using forced-choice, while Pink's open- ended coding found 2:1 inaction dominance. The mapping from "boldness regret" to "regretting staying in comfort zone" is strong but not perfect — some boldness regrets involve specific missed opportunities (a job offer, a romantic prospect) rather than a general disposition toward risk-aversion. The action-side 10% should be read as "the share of people whose biggest lifetime regret involves a bold action they took" rather than "10% of change-embracers regret it."
