Not based on any sources, but I believe that these results say more about our subjective experience of decisions (specifically in situations of action vs. inact

Not based on any sources, but I believe that these results say more about our subjective experience of decisions (specifically in situations of action vs. inaction) rather than the actual likelihood of outcomes. In other words, I'm not convinced that statistically in a situation of action / inaction an action is always more likely to lead to a more favourable outcome, but it is more likely to be later considered in a more positive light. Some of the reasons for that would be: * Empowered sense of agency * Taking action requires resources which would be "wasted" if the action is later considered the wrong choice, which potentially creates rationalization to avoid that (the sunk cost fallacy) * When you take an action to change a status quo you've probably prepared for the expected negative aspects of the change, diminishing their effect * When you stay inactive the potential to act is always there nagging In purely personal decisions the subjective experience might actually be more important than the real outcome (barring extreme circumstances), so taking an action might indeed be the right choice regardless. However, I do believe that these effects are also present in decisions that affect others (organizations, families etc.), in which the outcome is more important, and also affected others don't share the decision-maker's perspective and may subjectively experience the decision completely differently as a result.