The sunk cost fallacy describes a tendency to follow through on endeavors where time, money, or effort has already been invested. The sunk cost fallacy was first introduced by behavioral scientist Richard Thaler, who suggested in 1980 that “paying for the right to use a good or service will increase the rate at which the good will be utilised.” Psychologists Catherine Blumer and Hal Arkes expanded Thaler’s definition beyond monetary investment, defining the sunk cost fallacy as “a greater tendency to continue an endeavour once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made.”
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Concept Overview | The Sunk Cost Fallacy, also known as the Concorde Fallacy or Escalation of Commitment, is a cognitive bias that occurs when individuals or organizations continue to invest resources (time, money, effort) into a project or decision despite evidence that it is unlikely to be successful or that the costs outweigh the benefits. The fallacy arises from the belief that the investments already made (sunk costs) justify further investments to “recoup” or justify past expenses, even when rational analysis suggests discontinuation is the better choice. It can lead to poor decision-making and is relevant in various contexts, including business, personal finance, and relationships. |
| Key Elements | The Sunk Cost Fallacy includes the following key elements: 1. Sunk Costs: Costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered, regardless of future decisions. 2. Continuing Investment: The fallacy involves making further investments, whether financial, emotional, or time-related, based on past investments. 3. Irrational Decision-Making: Individuals or organizations persist with a project or decision that no longer makes sense from a rational standpoint. 4. Emotional Attachment: Emotional attachment to past investments can intensify the fallacy. |
| Examples | Examples of the Sunk Cost Fallacy include: 1. Business Investments: A company continuing to allocate resources to a failing project because of the substantial investment already made. 2. Personal Finance: A person persistently gambling or investing in a declining stock to recover previous losses. 3. Education: A student completing a degree they no longer want because they’ve already invested years of study. 4. Relationships: Staying in an unhealthy relationship because of the time and emotional investment. 5. Home Renovations: Pouring more money into a home renovation project that has exceeded the budget. |
| Impact and Consequences | The Sunk Cost Fallacy can lead to several negative consequences: 1. Financial Loss: Continuing to invest resources in a failing endeavor can result in financial losses. 2. Opportunity Cost: Resources spent on a futile project could have been allocated to more fruitful opportunities. 3. Time Wastage: The fallacy prolongs involvement in unproductive ventures, wasting valuable time. 4. Emotional Stress: Emotional attachment to past investments can lead to stress and anxiety. 5. Strained Relationships: In personal relationships, it can lead to strained relationships and unhappiness. |
| Overcoming the Fallacy | To overcome the Sunk Cost Fallacy, individuals and organizations can take the following steps: 1. Rational Analysis: Evaluate the current and future costs and benefits without considering past investments. 2. Seek External Advice: Consult with impartial individuals who can provide objective perspectives. 3. Set Clear Criteria: Establish clear criteria for when to continue or abandon a project, decision, or relationship. 4. Cut Losses: Be willing to accept sunk costs as unrecoverable and make decisions based on the present and future. 5. Learn from Mistakes: View past investments as learning experiences rather than justifications for further investment. |
Understanding the sunk cost fallacy
To test the fallacy in a real-world scenario, Blumer and Arkes conducted an experiment.
They decided to sell discounted seasonal tickets at a theatre to determine if the amount of money spent on a ticket influenced the frequency with which people attended.
In the study, one group of attendees paid the full price of $15. Others were given a $2 discount, with a $7 discount given to a third group. The pair then recorded how many theatre shows each individual attended. They found that individuals who paid full price for their tickets went to 4.11 shows on average.
Those who received a $2 discount went to 3.32 shows, while attendees with the cheapest tickets went to 3.29 shows. Arkes and Blumer had clearly demonstrated the sunk cost fallacy in action.
Attendees who paid full price for their tickets experienced the greatest sunk costs, meaning they were motivated to spend time at the theatre to recoup the higher price of the tickets.
Why does the sunk cost fallacy occur?
The sunk cost fallacy occurs because decision-making is often irrational and based on emotions.
Indeed, failing to follow through on a decision can lead to feelings of guilt, remorse, or shame.
The fallacy is also related to commitment bias, or a tendency to remain committed to past behaviors despite those behaviors having undesirable outcomes.
By failing to understand that the resources expended will never be recovered, the individual makes decisions based on past costs and not on more rational future costs and benefits.
Lastly, sunk cost fallacy may have some relationship with loss aversion.
This is a cognitive bias suggesting that the pain of losing something is twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining something.
As a result, people are more likely to avoid losses than seek out gains. In the context of the sunk cost fallacy, the individual equates a loss with not following through on their decision.
How to avoid the sunk cost fallacy
Making rational decisions by ignoring the investment already made is the best way to avoid the sunk cost fallacy.
This is a simple and effective solution on paper, but even the most logical people can be influenced by the fallacy when encountering it in real-world scenarios.
Research has also shown that simply knowing about the fallacy is not enough to avoid its influence. With that said, here are a few ways to avoid the psychological trap of sunk costs:
Omit the past in decision-making
Decisions should be based on future costs and benefits by looking forward. Resist the urge to consider the cost of past actions in the decision-making process.
In business, will pivoting on a project increase customer satisfaction scores?
Will a move to the cloud enable the organization to scale and meet higher-level goals?
Reframe past costs
Instead of considering past costs as a loss, think of them as costs that got the business to where it is today.
A new tool that didn’t quite meet expectations could be reframed as a tool that supported the team until something better could be developed.
A previous relationship that ended badly could be reframed as an important learning opportunity.
This process is known as cognitive reframing, a psychological concept that may help the individual avoid making illogical decisions.
Use technology in decision-making
Wherever possible, technology should be used to make decisions because it will not be swayed by the psychological satisfaction of sticking with sunk costs.
For businesses, machine learning and predictive analytics encourage leadership to make forward-thinking decisions.
Examples of Sunk Cost Fallacy
- Investments: An individual continues investing in a failing stock because they’ve already invested a significant amount and hope to recover the losses.
- Education: A student pursues a degree they no longer enjoy or find useful simply because they’ve already invested years of study and money.
- Business Projects: A company continues funding a project that shows no signs of success because they’ve already invested substantial resources.
- Personal Relationships: Someone stays in an unhealthy or unfulfilling relationship because they’ve already invested a lot of time and effort into it.
- Technology: A business persists with outdated technology or software because they’ve already invested in it, even if newer and better solutions are available.
- Home Renovations: A homeowner continues investing in costly renovations for a house they no longer want to live in, simply because they’ve already spent a significant amount on improvements.
- Gym Memberships: An individual continues paying for a gym membership they never use because they believe that if they stop, the money they’ve already paid will be wasted.
- Business Software: A company sticks with an expensive software solution that no longer meets their needs because they’ve already invested in training and implementation.
- Entertainment Events: A person attends a movie or concert they are not enjoying, simply because they’ve paid for the ticket and want to “get their money’s worth.”
- Personal Projects: An individual spends countless hours on a personal project that isn’t enjoyable or fulfilling, believing that quitting would be a waste of the time already invested.
- Subscriptions: Someone continues subscribing to a service they rarely use or no longer find valuable because they’ve already paid for the subscription.
- Travel Decisions: A traveler stays at a disappointing hotel or destination, thinking that changing plans mid-trip would be a waste of the money spent on reservations.
- Career Choices: An employee stays in a job they dislike or find unfulfilling because they’ve invested many years in the company and fear starting anew.
- Training Programs: A company continues sending employees to a training program that proves ineffective because they’ve already invested in the training fees and travel expenses.
- Real Estate Investments: An investor holds on to a property that is not performing well because they’ve already invested significant capital in its purchase.
Case Studies
| Company/Scenario | Sunk Cost Fallacy | Case Study | Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Concorde Project | Continued Investment Despite Declining Returns | The Concorde supersonic airliner project | Despite declining profitability and safety concerns, governments continued to fund and operate the Concorde for years, unable to abandon the substantial investments already made. |
| Movie Production | Pouring Money into a Failing Film | Multiple film productions with escalating budgets | In the film industry, studios may continue to invest in a poorly performing movie in the hope of recouping initial expenses, despite diminishing returns. |
| Business Expansion | Expanding a Failing Chain of Restaurants | A restaurant chain’s expansion with declining profits | Restaurant chains sometimes invest in opening new locations despite losses at existing ones, driven by the desire to make the original investment worthwhile. |
| Military Procurement | Maintaining and Upgrading Obsolete Equipment | Continuing upgrades to outdated military hardware | Some nations invest heavily in upgrading outdated military equipment, reluctant to admit that the original purchase was a mistake. |
| Software Development | Continuing Development of a Failing Software | Sunk costs incurred in a software development project | Companies sometimes persist with projects despite initial cost overruns and poor performance, hoping to recoup the initial investments. |
| Personal Investments | Holding onto Underperforming Investments | Individual investors refusing to sell losing stocks | Individual investors may hold onto underperforming stocks or assets, unwilling to accept a loss on their initial investment. |
| Political Decisions | Committing to Unpopular Policies | Politicians continuing unpopular policies | Elected officials may persist with policies that are no longer effective or popular due to the political cost of admitting mistakes. |
| Higher Education | Completing a Degree Despite Changing Goals | Students continuing degrees they no longer want | Some students pursue degrees they are no longer interested in, driven by the investment already made in their education. |
| Project Management | Overinvesting in a Flawed Project | Sunk costs in a project with insurmountable issues | Project managers may persist with projects that are not viable due to the resources already invested. |
| Retail Inventory | Refusing to Write Off Unsold Inventory | Retailers holding onto obsolete or unsellable items | Retailers may keep unsellable inventory in the hopes of recovering costs, even when it’s clear that the items will not sell. |
Key Highlights:
- Definition: The sunk cost fallacy refers to the irrational tendency to continue with an endeavor based on the past investment of time, money, or effort, even if it no longer makes sense.
- Emotional Influence: The fallacy is often driven by emotions such as guilt, fear of regret, or commitment bias, leading individuals to be unwilling to let go of their past investments.
- Avoiding the Fallacy: To avoid the sunk cost fallacy, individuals should focus on future costs and benefits rather than dwelling on past investments. Cognitive reframing can help see past costs as learning experiences rather than losses.
- Business Decision-making: In the business context, decision-makers should base choices on the project’s potential future benefits and consider whether continuing the endeavor aligns with the organization’s long-term goals.
- Technology and Objectivity: Using technology and data-driven decision-making can help businesses avoid emotional biases and make more rational choices. This includes leveraging analytics and predictive tools to assess the project’s viability objectively.
Key takeaways
- The sunk cost fallacy describes a tendency to follow through on endeavors where time, money, or effort has already been invested. It was first introduced by behavioral scientist Richard Thaler in 1980.
- The sunk cost fallacy occurs because decision-making is often irrational and based on emotions. It is also closely associated with commitment bias and loss aversion, with the latter describing a tendency for individuals to avoid losses rather than pursue gains.
- The sunk cost fallacy can be difficult to avoid for even the most logical thinkers. Cognitive reframing and the use of technology in decision-making are two strategies individuals and businesses can use to avoid it.
| Related Framework | Description | When to Apply |
|---|---|---|
| Prospect Theory | Prospect Theory is a behavioral economics theory that describes how individuals make decisions under uncertainty. It suggests that people evaluate potential outcomes relative to a reference point and are more sensitive to losses than gains. Prospect Theory explains phenomena such as loss aversion, where individuals are more motivated to avoid losses than to achieve equivalent gains, leading to irrational decision-making. | When analyzing decision-making processes under uncertainty, understanding how individuals weigh potential gains and losses, and identifying factors that influence risk preferences and decision outcomes. |
| Cognitive Dissonance | Cognitive Dissonance Theory proposes that individuals experience psychological discomfort when their beliefs or behaviors are inconsistent with each other. To reduce dissonance, people may rationalize their choices or beliefs, even if they contradict objective evidence. Cognitive dissonance can lead individuals to justify past decisions or investments, even when they no longer align with their best interests, contributing to the sunk cost fallacy. | When examining situations where individuals face conflicting beliefs or choices, understanding how cognitive dissonance influences decision-making, and identifying strategies to mitigate the impact of dissonance on rational decision-making. |
| Loss Aversion | Loss Aversion refers to the tendency for individuals to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. It suggests that the pain of losing is psychologically more significant than the pleasure of gaining the same amount. Loss aversion can lead people to make decisions based on avoiding further losses, even when those decisions are irrational or counterproductive, contributing to the sunk cost fallacy. | When analyzing decision-making biases related to risk and reward, understanding how individuals weigh potential losses and gains, and recognizing situations where loss aversion may influence behavior and lead to suboptimal decision outcomes. |
| Escalation of Commitment | Escalation of Commitment occurs when individuals continue to invest resources (time, money, effort) into a failing course of action, despite evidence suggesting that it is unlikely to succeed. It often arises from a desire to justify past investments or avoid admitting failure, leading to further losses and diminished returns. Escalation of commitment is a manifestation of the sunk cost fallacy, where past investments influence current decision-making. | When assessing situations where individuals persist in failing endeavors, recognizing the influence of past investments on decision-making, and identifying strategies to mitigate escalation of commitment by objectively evaluating the likelihood of success and potential returns on investment. |
| Behavioral Economics | Behavioral Economics combines principles from psychology and economics to understand how individuals make decisions in real-world contexts. It examines cognitive biases, heuristics, and social factors that influence decision-making, including the sunk cost fallacy. Behavioral economics offers insights into why people deviate from rational decision-making models and how these deviations affect economic outcomes and individual behavior. | When studying decision-making phenomena that deviate from traditional economic models, integrating insights from psychology and economics to understand decision biases, and designing interventions to address cognitive biases and improve decision outcomes in various domains. |
| Regret Aversion | Regret Aversion refers to the desire to avoid experiencing regret over past decisions. Individuals may make choices based on minimizing potential future regret rather than optimizing outcomes. Regret aversion can lead to conservative decision-making, reluctance to take risks, and adherence to the status quo, even when alternative options offer better potential outcomes. This aversion to regret can contribute to the sunk cost fallacy. | When analyzing decision-making processes influenced by anticipated regret, understanding how individuals weigh potential regret against other factors, and identifying strategies to mitigate regret aversion by promoting a focus on future outcomes and objective evaluation of options. |
| Anchoring Effect | The Anchoring Effect occurs when individuals rely too heavily on initial information (the “anchor”) when making decisions or estimates. Anchors can bias subsequent judgments, leading individuals to overvalue or undervalue subsequent information. In the context of the sunk cost fallacy, initial investments or commitments may serve as anchors, influencing individuals to continue investing resources based on past decisions rather than objective assessments of future prospects. | When examining decision-making biases related to information processing, recognizing how initial anchors influence subsequent judgments, and employing strategies to counteract anchoring effects by encouraging independent evaluation and consideration of relevant information. |
| Endowment Effect | The Endowment Effect is a cognitive bias where individuals assign higher value to objects they own or possess compared to equivalent objects they do not own. It can lead to irrational decision-making, such as overvaluing investments or assets simply because they are owned. In the context of the sunk cost fallacy, the endowment effect may contribute to individuals’ reluctance to abandon investments or projects due to the perceived loss of ownership. | When analyzing decision-making biases related to ownership and possession, recognizing how the endowment effect influences valuation and decision outcomes, and implementing strategies to mitigate its impact by promoting objective assessment and detachment from ownership biases. |
| Framing Effect | The Framing Effect refers to how different presentations of information (frames) can influence decision-making outcomes. The way information is framed can evoke different cognitive and emotional responses, leading to variations in decision preferences and behaviors. In the context of the sunk cost fallacy, framing investments or losses in different ways can affect individuals’ perceptions of their value and influence subsequent decisions. | When communicating information or options to decision-makers, recognizing how framing can influence perceptions and choices, and using framing techniques strategically to promote rational decision-making and mitigate biases such as the sunk cost fallacy. |
| Overoptimism Bias | Overoptimism Bias is the tendency for individuals to overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes and underestimate the probability of negative outcomes. It can lead to unrealistic expectations and risky decision-making, including persisting in failing endeavors due to overly optimistic beliefs about future prospects. Overoptimism bias contributes to the sunk cost fallacy by fostering unwarranted confidence in the success of past investments. | When assessing decision-makers’ expectations and forecasts, recognizing the influence of overoptimism bias on risk perception and decision outcomes, and implementing strategies to counteract bias by encouraging realistic assessment, scenario planning, and consideration of potential downsides and uncertainties. |
Connected Thinking Frameworks
Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking
Law of Unintended Consequences
Read Next: Biases, Bounded Rationality, Mandela Effect, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Lindy Effect, Crowding Out Effect, Bandwagon Effect.
Main Guides:
