The sunk cost fallacy is the tendency to continue investing time, money or effort in a decision because of resources already committed to it, rather than basing the decision only on its future costs and benefits. Because a sunk cost cannot be recovered regardless of what is chosen next, rational decision theory says it should have no bearing on a forward-looking choice, yet people and organizations routinely let past investment justify continuing a losing course of action. The behavioral scientists Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer gave the pattern its influential experimental treatment in a 1985 paper, The Psychology of Sunk Cost.
Facts
Core ClaimPeople let resources they have already spent and cannot get back influence decisions that should only be based on future costs and benefits. 1 First Described Year Cross-Tradition Connections
Sources
1. Wikipedia: Sunk Cost
Wikimedia FoundationSunk cost fallacy sectionQuote, Sunk cost fallacy section
This is the sunk cost fallacy, and such behavior may be described as "throwing good money after bad".
1. Wikipedia: Sunk Cost
Wikimedia FoundationReferences, Arkes and Blumer 1985
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.