Commission regret is the regret people feel after an action they took turns out worse, while omission regret follows an opportunity they failed to take. A crypto investor who sells a meme coin days before it rockets feels the first; one who never bought it feels the second. Li, Delfabbro and King (2025) report in Investigating the Role of Regret, FOMO and Financial Literacy in Cryptocurrency Speculation on 403 crypto investors. Recruited via Prolific in April 2024, investors in a sold-early meme coin scenario felt more regret than those who never bought (ηp2 = .05).
What the Study Found
Acts of commission also left investors more upset than acts of omission, F (7, 395) = 15.03, p < .001, ηp2 = .04. Neither temporal distance nor social comparison had a significant effect on any of the three outcome measures. FOMO was significantly linked to all three outcomes, with F = 22.86 for feeling upset and F = 14.21 for FOMO-based investment intention. Crypto literacy was linked to lower FOMO-based investment intention (F = 16.20, ηp2 = .04). Of the sample, 57.3% were at-risk gamblers on the PGSI, and 15.6% were problem gamblers.
"Acts of commission were associated with greater regret and negative emotion but not with FOMO-based investment decisions."
Li, Delfabbro and King (2025), Investigating the Role of Regret, FOMO and Financial Literacy in Cryptocurrency Speculation, Abstract.
Methodology
Participants read one of eight meme coin scenarios in a 2 × 2 × 2 between-groups design: commission vs. omission, long-term vs. short-term, and with vs. without a friend's advice. The final sample was 403 investors, after 43 of 446 recruits were excluded during screening. Recruitment took place in April 2024, with eligibility tied to the 2022–2024 cryptocurrency cycle. Three ANCOVAs controlled for crypto literacy, PGSI score, FOMO and impulsivity, and a hierarchical regression added risk tolerance.
Key Statistics
| Metric | Finding | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Action type effect on regret | F (7, 395) = 19.03, p < .001, ηp2 = .05 | Commission vs. omission, ANCOVA |
| Action type effect on feeling upset | F (7, 395) = 15.03, p < .001, ηp2 = .04 | Commission vs. omission, ANCOVA |
| FOMO covariate on regret | F = 9.15, ηp2 = .02 | ANCOVA covariate |
| Crypto literacy on FOMO-based investment intention | F = 16.20, ηp2 = .04 | ANCOVA covariate |
| Extra variance explained by crypto literacy | an additional 2% | Hierarchical regression, after FOMO and risk tolerance |
| At-risk gamblers (PGSI) | 57.3% | Full sample; 15.6% problem gamblers |
| Mean FOMO score | M = 23.79 (SD 7.49) | Possible range 10–50 |
| Investors who made money in 2022–2024 cycle | 67.5% | Full sample |
Non-Problem Gamblers vs Problem Gamblers
| Measure | Non-problem (n = 172) | Problem gambler (n = 63) |
|---|---|---|
| Regret, M (SD) | 7.16 (3.10) | 8.05 (2.59) |
| Feeling upset, M (SD) | 6.44 (3.08) | 7.65 (2.69) |
| FOMO-based investment intention, M (SD) | 2.83 (2.51) | 3.70 (2.77) |
Why This Matters
For a trader, the decision most likely to haunt them is an exit that later looks premature, which argues for setting exit rules before entering. Prevention aimed only at problem gamblers would miss the low- and moderate-risk investors who showed the same pattern. The authors argue that FOMO and risk tolerance may be hard to change, leaving knowledge-building as the practical lever. They suggest exchanges add risk self-assessments, knowledge tests and prompts asking users to reflect on their emotional state.