Science Deep Dive Bio-Performance
The sunk cost fallacy is not a thinking error you can correct with awareness, it is a neural architecture that treats abandonment as loss and persistence as identity, and overriding it requires restructuring the decision itself.
22 min read
Bio-Performance

Why We Keep Throwing Good Resources After Bad: The Sunk Cost Fallacy Examined

The sunk cost fallacy is not a thinking error you can correct with awareness, it is a neural architecture that treats abandonment as loss and persistence as identity, and overriding it requires restructuring the decision itself.

Mechanism
Controlled Human Data
Interpretation
Peer-reviewed evidence · Editorial synthesis
— What the Research Actually Found —

Four decades of experimental evidence, from laboratory vignettes to corporate acquisitions worth billions, converge on a single conclusion: sunk cost psychology is measurable, neurally grounded, and resistant to intelligence alone.

Meta-Analytic Effect d = 0.50 Cohen's d

Across 98 independent effect sizes spanning four decades, the sunk cost effect produces a moderate and reliable distortion in economic decision-making, with effect sizes varying by task type and incentive structure.[18]

Meta-analysis
[18]
Corporate Entrenchment 8–9 %

An interquartile rise in acquisition cost reduces subsequent divestiture probability by 8–9 per cent, concentrated in firm-years when the CEO who authorised the original deal remains in post.[34]

Field study
[34]
Loss Aversion Asymmetry ~2× pain multiplier

Losses feel approximately twice as painful as equivalent gains, the asymmetric value function that gives sunk costs their emotional charge.[3]

Foundational theory
[3]
The Causal Knockout p < .05 significance

Patients with vmPFC damage show significantly reduced persistence bias, and their decision performance actually improves, proving the fallacy costs outcomes.[33]

fMRI + lesion
[33]
44 Peer-reviewed sources
Evidence Signal

Converging evidence from neuroimaging, brain stimulation, cross-species behavioural paradigms, corporate field data, and meta-analysis establishes the sunk cost effect as one of the most robustly documented biases in behavioural science.

Study Mix
RCT
3
Meta
1
Cohort
4
Review
8
Editorial Judgment

The strongest evidence comes not from laboratory vignettes but from lesion studies and real-market data, the sunk cost fallacy is not an artefact of hypothetical scenarios; it shapes billion-dollar corporate decisions.

In 2016, a research team at the University of Oxford did something unusual with brain-damaged patients. They gave them investment decisions, the same kind of decisions that trip up hedge fund managers, military strategists, and anyone who has ever stayed in a bad relationship too long, and discovered something that inverts four decades of assumptions about sunk cost psychology. The patients with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex did not just make different decisions. They made better ones.[33] The part of the brain that drives persistence, the part that whispers you've come this far, was gone. And with it went the fallacy.

That finding, published in Nature Human Behaviour, is the sharpest evidence yet that the sunk cost fallacy is not a failure of logic. It is not a gap in education. It is a feature of neural architecture, a system that treats prior investment as a reason to continue, regardless of whether continuing makes sense. Removing the system does not impair decision-making. It improves it.[33]

The sunk cost effect is one of the most replicated phenomena in behavioural science. Roth and Robbert's meta-analysis of 98 independent effect sizes confirmed a moderate, reliable distortion: d = 0.496 across four decades of research.[18] The effect shows up in laboratory vignettes, corporate boardrooms, and, as a parallel line of work in rodents has demonstrated, even in species that have never heard of a balance sheet.[21]

Editorial pause
The sunk cost fallacy is not a thinking error you can think your way out of, it is a neural commitment system operating below the threshold of deliberation.

The term "sunk cost" originates in economics, any cost already incurred that cannot be recovered. Standard economic theory says such costs should be irrelevant to future decisions. The field of sunk cost psychology exists because humans reliably violate this principle.

The mistake most people make when they first encounter the sunk cost fallacy is to assume it is about stupidity. It is not. Haita-Falah's laboratory analysis demonstrated that raw fluid intelligence, the kind measured by IQ tests, does not protect against the bias.[19] What matters is not how smart you are but how your brain encodes investment. The sunk cost effect runs on the same loss aversion circuitry that Kahneman and Tversky identified in their foundational work on prospect theory: losses feel approximately twice as painful as equivalent gains, and abandoning a sunk cost registers neurally as a loss.[3][12]

This is why awareness campaigns fail. Telling someone about the sunk cost fallacy is like telling someone afraid of heights that gravity is constant. The information is correct. It changes nothing about the felt experience. The bias persists because the neural machinery that produces it is older than language, older than culture, and, if the cross-species evidence holds, older than the mammalian cortex itself.

Thaler's mental accounting framework explains the bookkeeping layer: people open a mental account when they make an investment and experience acute discomfort at the prospect of closing that account in the red.[4][5][8] The account stays open. The investment stays active. The loss stays unfelt, until exit forces the write-down.

Editorial pause
Intelligence does not insulate you from the bias. What matters is not IQ but the brain's refusal to close a losing account.

The practical consequences are enormous. Guenzel's field study of 558 corporate acquisitions between 1980 and 2016 found that an interquartile rise in acquisition cost reduces the probability of subsequent divestiture by 8–9 per cent, and the distortion concentrates in firm-years when the CEO who authorised the original deal remains in office.[34] This is the sunk cost fallacy operating at the scale of public markets, bending corporate strategy around a psychological artefact.

Staw's original 1976 experiment established the core dynamic in miniature: business students who felt personally responsible for a failing investment committed the most additional resources to it.[2] The pattern, which the literature calls escalation of commitment, scales. From theatre tickets to billion-dollar mergers, the mechanism is the same: prior expenditure distorts current evaluation. The question is why, and the answer lives in a circuit that connects the striatum, the insula, the prefrontal cortex, and the fundamental way the brain prices commitment.

Editorial pause (Section verdict)
Sunk cost psychology is not a curiosity of behavioural economics. It is a neural architecture that bends real-world decisions, from personal relationships to corporate strategy, away from prospective value and toward the gravitational pull of the past.
The Mechanism

The Neural Circuit That Makes Letting Go Feel Like Losing

The sunk cost fallacy begins in the oldest part of the decision-making system. When you invest effort, time, or money into a course of action, the brain does not simply record the expenditure. It recalibrates value. In animal models, Eshel and Malenka demonstrated that dopamine release in the striatum, the brain's central reward-processing hub, scales with the effort required to obtain a reward, the harder you worked, the more the reward pathway insists the outcome must be worth it.[31] This animal-model evidence suggests a neurochemical basis for why prior investment inflates perceived value, though the extent to which this mechanism operates identically in human sunk cost decisions has not yet been directly established.

That matters because the distortion starts before conscious reasoning enters the picture. The ventral striatum and dorsolateral striatum are not deliberation centres. They are valuation centres. By the time a person sits down to evaluate whether to continue a failing project, the reward circuitry has already inflated the perceived value of the investment, not because the project is good, but because the effort was large.[31][37]

Li and colleagues' 2013 fMRI study, the first neuroimaging study of the sunk cost effect, found that higher sunk costs activated lateral frontal and parietal cortices associated with risk-taking, while lower incremental costs activated the striatum and medial prefrontal cortex associated with reward processing.[13] No overlapping brain areas responded to both. The sunk cost effect, at the neural level, is not a single computation. It is a shift in which network runs the decision.

Editorial pause
The sunk cost bias does not start with a bad argument. It starts with a dopamine signal that re-prices value before reasoning begins.

The second node in the circuit is the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). This region performs two functions that appear contradictory but are actually complementary. Haller and Schwabe's 2014 imaging study found that previous investments reduced vmPFC contribution to current decision-making.[14] The more you had already spent, the less the rational value-comparison system participated. The vmPFC was being suppressed, its prospective-value function was going quiet.

Holton and colleagues' 2024 study revealed the other face of the same coin. The vmPFC also drives goal commitment through selective attention: as participants approached goal completion, vmPFC activity increasingly prioritised goal-related stimuli over alternatives, a process called selective attentional capture.[33] These are not contradictory findings. They describe two functions of the same region: the vmPFC's role in calculating future value is suppressed by sunk costs (Haller), while its role in locking attention onto the current goal is amplified (Holton). The net effect is a brain that stops comparing options and starts defending the choice it has already made.

The causal proof came from Holton's lesion patients. With the vmPFC damaged, participants showed significantly reduced persistence bias, and their overall decision performance improved.[33] The region that drives commitment also drives the fallacy. Remove it, and people make better choices.

Editorial pause
The vmPFC is not malfunctioning when it produces the sunk cost effect. It is doing its job, defending a commitment, in a context where that defence is irrational.

The third node is the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Where the vmPFC tracks commitment, the dlPFC enforces a social norm: do not waste. Haller and Schwabe found that dlPFC activity was negatively correlated with vmPFC activity during sunk cost decisions, the more the "waste aversion" system took over, the stronger the bias.[14] Wang and Li's 2022 brain stimulation study proved the relationship is causal. Using high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS), they showed that stimulating the right dlPFC upward amplified the de-escalation effect of sunk costs, while stimulating it downward increased escalation, bidirectional control over the fallacy in two independent cohorts.[30]

The dlPFC, in Thaler's mental accounting framework, is the system that refuses to close a mental account in the red.[8] It converts a financial calculation into a moral imperative. Quitting is not just economically suboptimal; it feels wrong. And because the dlPFC is part of the executive control network, the system we associate with discipline and willpower, the irony is precise: the neural machinery of self-control is the same machinery that sustains the bias.

Fujino and colleagues found the final amplifier: the insula. Left insula activation correlated positively with individual sunk cost susceptibility, and the insula-dlPFC coupling was tight.[16] The insula processes visceral emotional signals, the gut feeling that something is being lost. It feeds that signal to the dlPFC, which translates the emotion into a normative commitment. Personality predicted the coupling strength: individuals high in agreeableness and conscientiousness were most vulnerable.[16]

Editorial pause
Three systems conspire: the striatum inflates value, the vmPFC locks attention, and the dlPFC-insula axis converts emotion into a moral imperative not to waste.

That number, d = 0.50, deserves interrogation. A Cohen's d of half a standard deviation is not trivial. It sits in the zone that behavioural scientists call "medium," roughly equivalent to the difference in height between 15- and 16-year-old girls.[18] The effect is not uniform: it is larger in hypothetical scenarios than in real-incentive settings, and it is moderated by time delay, decision type, and age.[18][27] Older adults show reduced susceptibility, not because they are wiser in some abstract sense, but because they focus more on prospective value and less on investment magnitude.[27][36]

The cross-species data adds an evolutionary dimension. Sweis and colleagues documented sunk cost–like sensitivity across mice, rats, and humans using structurally identical "Restaurant Row" and "WebSurf" foraging paradigms.[21] Sensitivity accrued only after the initial decision to enter, in the wait-zone, not the offer-zone, suggesting the commitment mechanism engages after, not before, the decision point. The finding implies that the bias may not be a uniquely human cultural artefact, though a subsequent analysis by Ott and colleagues argues that some of this pattern is explicable by statistical attrition in rational Bayesian agents rather than true sunk-cost computation.[21] The debate is ongoing, and the cross-species interpretation remains contested.

What is not contested is the evolutionary logic. Eswaran and Neary's game-theoretic modelling suggests two adaptive functions for sunk cost honouring: as a commitment device that protects long-term investments from moment-to-moment temptation, and as a signal of producer fitness that deters resource interlopers.[17] The bias was useful. It is useful now only in environments where the original adaptive logic still holds, and most modern decision environments are not those environments.

Editorial pause
The sunk cost effect is moderate in size, ancient in origin, and contested at its evolutionary boundaries, but its neural signature is not in doubt.

"We don't make rational decisions about the future, we make defensive decisions about the past."

— Editorial synthesis, Arkes & Blumer (1985)
d = 0.50Cohen's d

meta-analytic effect size of the sunk cost fallacy across 98 independent studies spanning 1976–2013, a moderate, persistent distortion, measured in Cohen's d, that varies by task type and incentive structure

Roth & Robbert (2015) · Meta-analysis · 98 effect sizes · 360 publications screened
The 5 Strongest Studies on Sunk Cost Psychology

Ranked by a 100-point rubric covering design quality, sample scope, measurement rigour, causal clarity, independent replication, and field influence. The flagship study combines the two strongest forms of causal evidence in cognitive neuroscience.

5

#1
79/100
/100
Holton, Grohn, Ward, Manohar, O'Reilly & Kolling (2024), Goal commitment is supported by vmPFC through selective attention
p < .05 significance

fMRI Lesion Evidence Controlled
Design27/30 Sample13/20 Rigour13/15 Causality14/15 Replication7/10 Citations5/10
Supporting evidence · Rank 2–5
Cross-species evolutionary evidence
74/100
/100
Sweis, Abram, Schmidt, Seeland, MacDonald, Thomas & Redish (2018), Sensitivity to "sunk costs" in mice, rats, and humans
Sweis, Abram, Schmidt, Seeland, MacDonald, Thomas & Redish
Cross-species confirmation
Sunk cost–like sensitivity documented across mice, rats, and humans using structurally identical "Restaurant Row" and "WebSurf" paradigms. The effect accrued only in the wait-zone, after the initial commitment, not during deliberation. However, Ott and colleagues (2022, *Science Advances*) have argued that statistical attrition bias in rational agents can produce identical patterns without true sunk-cost computation. The debate is ongoing.
The commitment mechanism may have deep evolutionary roots, though the strength of the cross-species inference is actively contested.
Best controlled causal manipulation
73/100
/100
Wang & Li (2022), High-definition transcranial stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex alters the sunk cost effect
Wang & Li
Bidirectional causal control
Anodal stimulation over the right dlPFC amplified de-escalation; cathodal stimulation increased escalation. Two independent cohorts replicated the bidirectional effect. The dlPFC encodes a "do not waste" mental accounting rule and is the causal mediator between sunk cost and commitment.
The dlPFC is causally involved, turn it up, the fallacy shifts; turn it down, it shifts the opposite direction.
Largest behavioural demonstration
74/100
/100
Olivola (2018), The interpersonal sunk-cost effect
Olivola
6,076 participants
Sunk cost effects were robustly documented when costs were borne by other people, not just the decision-maker. The effect was not moderated by social closeness or whether the other person was watching. The interpersonal effect held across diverse real and hypothetical scenarios.
The sunk cost fallacy is not just personal, we honour other people's investments too, broadening its social reach to organisational and team decisions.
Field-shaping seminal paper
62/100
/100
Arkes & Blumer (1985), The psychology of sunk cost
Arkes & Blumer
Significant attendance difference
Theatre subscribers who paid full price attended significantly more performances than those who received discounted tickets, a real-world monetary sunk cost effect confirmed in a field setting. Across 10 experiments, waste-avoidance was identified as the key psychological driver.
The sunk cost effect exists in real financial behaviour, not just hypothetical vignettes, established definitively in 1985 with real theatre-goers spending real money.
Editorial judgment

The common thread across all four domains is the gap between what the evidence says you should do (evaluate only prospective value) and what the neural architecture compels you to do (weight prior investment). The gap is not closed by intelligence.[19] It is not closed by experience, though older adults do show reduced susceptibility, likely because they focus more on remaining time horizons and less on cumulative investment.[27][36][44] And it is not closed by awareness of the bias, a finding that separates the sunk cost fallacy from simpler cognitive errors that respond to education.

The action-inaction framing effect matters too. Feldman and Wong demonstrated that framing escalation as "action" and de-escalation as "inaction" increases commitment, a mini-meta-analytic effect of d = 0.37.[24] The language you use to describe the choice changes the choice itself. This is not a metaphor. It is a measurable shift in resource allocation driven by whether the exit option is framed as doing something or doing nothing.

Editorial pause
The sunk cost fallacy extracts its highest price not from single bad decisions but from systems that make exit invisible, costly, or socially unacceptable.
What Breaks When You Cannot Let Go

The Four Domains Where Sunk Costs Extract the Highest Price

The sunk cost fallacy does not operate in a vacuum. It bends four domains of decision-making, corporate strategy, personal finance, relationships, and health, toward the gravitational pull of prior investment.

System 01
Corporate Strategy
Guenzel's analysis of 558 acquisitions found that higher acquisition costs reduce divestiture likelihood by 8–9 per cent, with distortions concentrated in financially unconstrained firms where the initiating CEO remains in post.[34] The companies best positioned to cut losses are the ones most likely to hold on. Staw and Ross identified the same pattern in managerial decision-making: accountability amplifies escalation.[7]
What it feels like · "We've invested too much to walk away now" · delayed restructuring · zombie projects consuming budget
System 02
Personal Finance
Soman's five experiments demonstrated that the sunk cost effect for money is stronger than for time, but when time is explicitly monetised, the time effect reappears.[26] People lack a natural accounting process for time investments, which means sunk time costs accumulate invisibly. Mental accounts for financial commitments stay open until closed by exit, generating ongoing psychological pressure.[8]
What it feels like · holding losing investments too long · renewing subscriptions you don't use · finishing expensive meals you don't want
System 03
Relationships & Identity
The interpersonal sunk cost effect means people honour not only their own investments but other people's.[20] In relationships, years invested function as a sunk cost that resists rational exit. Lower childhood socioeconomic status predicts greater susceptibility, mediated by heightened perceived wastefulness from resource-scarce upbringing.[32] Whyte's prospect theory analysis of group escalation shows that group escalation dynamics amplify the individual bias.[42]
What it feels like · staying in failing partnerships "because of the years" · defending past career choices · identity fused with prior commitments
System 04
Clinical & Neurological
Gambling disorder patients show pathological amplification of normal sunk cost processing, with heightened orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) activity during sunk cost decisions.[22] Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), by contrast, show significantly reduced susceptibility, suggesting that reduced sensitivity to contextual investment cues can be protective.[23] The sunk cost fallacy is not a single dial. It is a spectrum, with clinical populations at both extremes.
What it feels like · chasing losses in gambling · compulsive project completion · inability to abandon failing treatments
1 / 4

The protocol is deliberately structural rather than psychological. It does not ask people to feel differently about their investments. It asks organisations and individuals to change the architecture of the decision itself, who makes it, how it is framed, and what criteria trigger exit. This is the distinction between debiasing (trying to correct the bias inside the person) and decision architecture, sometimes called choice architecture, (changing the decision environment so the bias does not reach the choice point).

The debiasing literature has a mixed record. Simple awareness of the sunk cost fallacy does not reliably reduce it.[19] Regulatory focus interventions, activating a growth orientation rather than a loss-prevention orientation, show more promise.[25] The strongest interventions change the decision structure: who decides, what information they see, and what the default option is.[6][7] The evidence is clearer for these structural approaches than for any attempt to make the same person, with the same neural architecture, simply decide differently.

Editorial pause
The most effective sunk cost interventions do not ask you to think better, they change the decision so your existing thinking produces a better answer.

"The question is never 'How do I feel less loss?' It is 'Who should make this decision, and what should they see?'"

— Editorial synthesis, Staw & Ross (1987)
Translation Layer · What Changes Tomorrow Morning

A 4-Step Sunk Cost Override Protocol

The science supports specific decision-architecture interventions, not willpower, not awareness campaigns, but structural changes to how exit decisions are framed and evaluated.

01
Before commitment
The Pre-Mortem
Rule
Before any significant investment, conduct a pre-mortem exercise: assume the project has failed, then identify why.
Why
Mitchell and colleagues demonstrated that prospective hindsight increases failure-identification accuracy by 30 per cent.[6] The technique forces a mental simulation of the loss before sunk costs begin accumulating, reducing subsequent escalation.[15]
Common mistake
Running the pre-mortem after commitment begins, by then the vmPFC goal-lock is already active and the exercise becomes rationalisation, not analysis.
02
At each decision point
The Fresh-Eyes Audit
Rule
Assign exit decisions to someone who did not make the original investment.
Why
Staw's 1976 finding is unambiguous: personal responsibility for the prior outcome is the single strongest predictor of escalation.[2] Removing the identity link between decision-maker and prior investment reduces the dlPFC's "do not waste" signal.[7]
Common mistake
Asking the original decision-maker to "be objective", the neural commitment system does not respond to instructions to ignore itself.
03
When evaluating continuation
The Reframe
Rule
Reframe continuation as the active choice and exit as the default.
Why
Feldman and Wong showed that action-framing of escalation increases commitment by d = 0.37.[24] Inverting the frame, making staying the thing you have to justify rather than leaving, exploits the same framing asymmetry in reverse.[24] Activating a promotion focus (what you gain by exiting) rather than a prevention focus (what you lose by exiting) further reduces escalation.[25]
Common mistake
Framing the exit conversation around "what we've already spent" rather than "what the next pound/dollar is buying us", this re-activates the mental account.
04
After the decision
The Account Close
Rule
Set pre-committed exit criteria before the investment begins, and enforce them mechanically.
Why
Thaler's mental accounting research shows that the pain of closing an account in the red is the core psychological driver of the sunk cost effect.[8] Pre-committed exit criteria, decided before the investment generates emotional attachment, bypass this pain by converting the exit from a loss into a rule-following event.[40] The harm-to-others framing can also reduce escalation: Hamzagic and colleagues found that sunk costs lose their grip when continuing would cause harm to others.[29]
Common mistake
Setting exit criteria and then renegotiating them when the threshold approaches, this is the sunk cost fallacy recursively applied to the exit protocol itself.
1 / 4

The four steps form a decision-architecture stack: prevent the commitment bias from forming (pre-mortem), remove the identity anchor (fresh eyes), invert the framing asymmetry (reframe), and pre-commit to exit criteria before emotional attachment takes hold (account close).

The Verdict
01
Claim
A neural circuit, not a thinking error
The sunk cost fallacy is produced by a four-region neural circuit, striatum, vmPFC, dlPFC, insula, that converts prior expenditure into present commitment. Removing the key node (vmPFC) improves decision performance, proving the output is a net cost.
02
Consequence
Escalation at every scale
From personal relationships to billion-dollar corporate acquisitions, the bias extracts measurable costs. An interquartile rise in acquisition cost reduces divestiture probability by 8–9 per cent, the fallacy distorts real markets at scale.
03
Lever
Decision architecture, not education
The reliable interventions are structural: pre-mortems, fresh-eyes audits, reframing, and pre-committed exit criteria. The protocol changes the decision environment, not the person making it, because the neural commitment system does not respond to instructions to override itself.
High
High Confidence
Strong mechanistic evidence from fMRI and lesion studies · replicated causal manipulation via brain stimulation · confirmed in real-market corporate data · meta-analytic confirmation across 98 effect sizes

References

0 sources cited — peer-reviewed sources

  1. 1Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
  2. 2Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44. DOI: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2
  3. 3Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. DOI: 10.2307/1914185
  4. 4Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39–60. DOI: 10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7
  5. 5Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214. DOI: 10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
  6. 6Mitchell, D. J., Russo, J. E., & Pennington, N. (1989). Back to the future: Temporal perspective in the explanation of events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2(1), 25–38.
  7. 7Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1987). Knowing when to pull the plug. Harvard Business Review, 65(2), 68–74.
  8. 8Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183–206. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3<183::AID-BDM318>3.0.CO;2-F
  9. 9Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2005). The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83(1), 1–13. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2005.21-04
  10. 10Friedman, D., Pommerenke, K., Lukose, R., Milam, G., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Searching for the sunk cost fallacy. Experimental Economics, 10(1), 79–104.
  11. 11Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. Viking.
  12. 12Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  13. 13Li, Y., Lu, Y., Zhao, X., Rao, L.-L., Zhou, Y., Liang, Z.-Y., & Li, S. (2013). An fMRI study on sunk cost effect. Brain Research, 1514, 57–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.04.026
  14. 14Haller, A., & Schwabe, L. (2014). Sunk costs in the human brain. NeuroImage, 97, 127–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.036
  15. 15Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. Crown.
  16. 16Fujino, J., Fujimoto, S., Kodaka, F., Camerer, C. F., Kawada, R., Tsurumi, K., et al. (2016). Neural mechanisms and personality correlates of the sunk cost effect. Scientific Reports, 6, 33171. DOI: 10.1038/srep33171
  17. 17Eswaran, M., & Neary, H. M. (2016). The evolutionary logic of honoring sunk costs. Economic Inquiry, 54(1), 482–491. DOI: 10.1111/ecin.12287
  18. 18Roth, S., & Robbert, T. (2015). On the sunk-cost effect in economic decision-making: A meta-analytic review. Business Research, 8, 99–138. DOI: 10.1007/s40685-014-0014-8
  19. 19Haita-Falah, C. (2017). Sunk-cost fallacy and cognitive ability in individual decision-making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 58, 44–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2016.12.001
  20. 20Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The interpersonal sunk-cost effect. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1072–1083. DOI: 10.1177/0956797617752641
  21. 21Sweis, B. M., Abram, S. V., Schmidt, B. J., Seeland, K. D., MacDonald, A. W., Thomas, M. J., & Redish, A. D. (2018). Sensitivity to "sunk costs" in mice, rats, and humans. Science, 361(6398), 178–181. DOI: 10.1126/science.aar8644
  22. 22Li, Y., Feng, X., Guo, J., & Li, S. (2018). An fMRI study of decision-making under sunk costs in gambling disorder. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 28(12), 1330–1338. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.08.507
  23. 23Li, Y., Gao, Y., Yang, L., & Li, S. (2018). Sunk cost effect in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(1), 95–105. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-018-3679-6
  24. 24Feldman, G., & Wong, K. F. E. (2018). When action-inaction framing leads to higher escalation of commitment: A new inaction-effect perspective on the sunk-cost fallacy. Psychological Science, 29(4), 537–548. DOI: 10.1177/0956797617739368
  25. 25Molden, D. C., & Hui, C. M. (2011). Promoting de-escalation of commitment: A regulatory-focus perspective on sunk costs. Psychological Science, 22(1), 8–12. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610390386
  26. 26Soman, D. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(3), 169–185. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.370
  27. 27Strough, J., Mehta, C. M., McFall, J. P., & Schuller, K. L. (2011). Understanding decisions about sunk costs from older and younger adults' perspectives. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 66(6), 681–691. DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbr071
  28. 28Olivola, C. Y., & Shafir, E. (2013). The martyrdom effect: When pain and effort increase prosocial contributions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(1), 91–105. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1757
  29. 29Hamzagic, Z. I., Derksen, D. G., Matsuba, M. K., Aßfalg, A., & Bernstein, D. M. (2021). Harm to others reduces the sunk-cost effect. Memory & Cognition, 49(4), 715–726. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-020-01112-7
  30. 30Wang, J., & Li, J. (2022). High-definition transcranial stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex alters the sunk cost effect: A mental accounting framework. Journal of Neuroscience, 42(35), 6770–6781. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0127-22.2022
  31. 31Eshel, N., & Malenka, R. C. (2024). Striatal dopamine integrates cost, benefit, and motivation. Neuron, 112(3), 500–514.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2023.10.038
  32. 32Jhang, J., & Lee, J. (2023). The impact of childhood environments on the sunk-cost fallacy. Psychology & Marketing, 40(3), 480–492. DOI: 10.1002/mar.21750
  33. 33Holton, E., Grohn, J., Ward, H., Manohar, S. G., O'Reilly, J. X., & Kolling, N. (2024). Goal commitment is supported by vmPFC through selective attention. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 1351–1365. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01844-5
  34. 34Guenzel, M. (2025). In too deep: The effect of sunk costs on corporate investment. Journal of Finance. DOI: 10.1111/jofi.13430
  35. 35Macaskill, A. C., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2012). The sunk cost effect with pigeons: Some determinants of decisions about persistence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97(1), 85–99. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2012.97-85
  36. 36Bruine de Bruin, W., Strough, J., & Parker, A. M. (2014). Getting older isn't all that bad: Better decisions and coping when facing 'sunk costs'. Psychology and Aging, 29(3), 642–647. DOI: 10.1037/a0036308
  37. 37Wang, J., Zhang, B., Liang, S., & Li, J. (2022). Sunk cost effects hinge on the neural recalibration of reference points in mental accounting. Progress in Neurobiology, 208, Article 102178. DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2021.102178
  38. 38Straw, J. M., Karns, T. E., & Schlosnagle, L. (2011). Decision-making heuristics and biases across the life span. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235(1), 57–74.
  39. 39Tassy, S., Deruelle, C., Mancini, J., & Wicker, B. (2017). Transcranial stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex increases the impact of past expenses on decision-making. Cerebral Cortex, 27(2), 1094–1102. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhv298
  40. 40Bragger, J. D., Bragger, D., Hantula, D. A., & Kirnan, J. (1998). Hysteresis and uncertainty: The effect of uncertainty on delays to exit decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(3), 229–253. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2751
  41. 41Jarmolowicz, D. P., Bickel, W. K., & Gatchalian, K. M. (2013). Remembered utility influences delay discounting of future rewards. Behavioural Processes, 97, 99–104.
  42. 42Whyte, G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making: A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 430–455. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1993.1018
  43. 43Ronayne, D., Sgroi, D., & Tuckwell, A. (2021). Evaluating the sunk cost effect. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 186, 318–327. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.029
  44. 44Strough, J., Parker, A. M., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2015). Understanding life-span developmental changes in the susceptibility to sunk-cost bias. Psychology and Aging, 30(3), 714–726. DOI: 10.1037/pag0000037 --- ## METADATA ### Word Count Targets | Block | Target | Actual | |-------|--------|--------| | Masthead | 50–100 | 85 | | Key Findings | 150–250 | 230 | | Opening | 600–900 | 820 | | Mechanism | 1,500–2,500 | 1,680 | | Evidence | 1,200–1,800 | 1,520 | | Stakes | 500–800 | 680 | | Protocol | 500–800 | 750 | | Verdict | 400–700 | 580 | | *TOTAL | 4,900–7,850 | ~5,800 | ### Stat Collision Check | Stat | Appears in blocks | Varied framing? | |------|-------------------|-----------------| | d = 0.50 | Key Findings, Mechanism (big stat), Evidence (hierarchy footer) | Yes, badge in KF, interrogated in Mechanism, contextualised in Evidence | | 8–9% | Key Findings, Stakes, Verdict triad | Yes, badge in KF, corporate narrative in Stakes, consequence in Verdict | | ~2× | Key Findings, Mechanism (diagram) | Yes, badge in KF, circuit annotation in Mechanism | | p < .05 (Holton) | Key Findings, Evidence (hierarchy #1), Verdict triad | Yes, badge in KF, full study treatment in Evidence, claim in Verdict | ### dfn Terms per Block | Block | Count | Terms | |-------|-------|-------| | Opening | 9 | ventromedial prefrontal cortex, sunk cost fallacy, sunk cost effect, meta-analysis, fluid intelligence, loss aversion, prospect theory, mental accounting, escalation of commitment | | Mechanism | 17 | dopamine, striatum, ventral striatum, dorsolateral striatum, reward circuitry, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, goal commitment, selective attentional capture, persistence bias, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, HD-tDCS, insula, agreeableness, conscientiousness, Cohen's d, game-theoretic, sunk cost honouring, commitment device, wait-zone | | Evidence | 5 | vignette paradigms, construct validity, interpersonal sunk cost effect, sunk cost effect, interpersonal sunk cost effect | | Stakes | 8 | sunk cost effect, interpersonal sunk cost effect, perceived wastefulness, prospect theory, gambling disorder, orbitofrontal cortex, autism spectrum disorder, action-inaction framing effect | | Protocol | 8 | pre-mortem, prospective hindsight, promotion focus, prevention focus, pre-committed exit criteria, debiasing, decision architecture, choice architecture, regulatory focus | | Verdict | 4 | valuation system, superforecasters, probabilistic prediction, base-rate thinking | | TOTAL | 52 (some terms appear in multiple blocks) | | ### Internal Links | Target | Clean URL | Used in block | |--------|-----------|---------------| | Cognitive Biases Guide | /decisions/cognitive-biases/guide/ | (available for Coder Nav Rail) | | Mental Models Guide | /decisions/mental-models/guide/ | (available for Coder Nav Rail) | ### Editorial Pause Inventory | Block | Pause count | Labels used | |-------|-------------|-------------| | Opening | 3 | Editorial pause, Editorial pause, Section verdict | | Mechanism | 4 | Editorial pause ×3, Editorial pause | | Evidence | 3 | Editorial pause, Editorial pause, Section verdict | | Stakes | 1 | Editorial pause | | Protocol | 1 | Editorial pause | | Verdict | 1 | Final line | | TOTAL | 13* | | ### Pull Quote Inventory | Block | Quote text | Attribution | Word count | |-------|-----------|-------------|------------| | Mechanism | "We don't make rational decisions about the future, we make defensive decisions about the past." | Editorial synthesis, Arkes & Blumer (1985) | 16 | | Protocol | "The question is never 'How do I feel less loss?' It is 'Who should make this decision, and what should they see?'" | Editorial synthesis, Staw & Ross (1987) | 24 |
No references match your search.

DOI links resolve to the original publisher via doi.org. Open-access versions can often be found via Google Scholar.

High-Performance Insights

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *