The sunk cost fallacy, or lost costs fallacy, is a cognitive bias that occurs when people continue to invest time, energy and resources in something that is proving to be a failure, just because they have already invested so much in the past. This mechanism can also manifest itself in relationships, pushing us to maintain dysfunctional bonds in order not to “waste” the emotional investment previously sustained. But it is not only the lost costs fallacy that leads us not to end relationships, because there are also those who suffer from emotional dependence, with a different level of involvement compared to those who suffer from the lost costs fallacy.
The causes of difficulty in leaving: what is the lost costs fallacy
The concept of lost cost fallacy was explored in depth in the famous experiment of the two psychologists Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer in 1985: a group of people were offered two season tickets for theater shows; some participants paid a higher price, others a discounted price. Over the course of the theater season, the researchers observed that those who paid more participated in a higher number of showseven when he wasn’t particularly interested or satisfied. Hence, the more general concept: people tend not to be willing to give up their goal even when it turns out to be harmful, unsuccessful or unfulfilling just because there was a previous investmentfalling into what behavioral economics defines sunk cost fallacy (in Italian, sunk cost fallacy). For example, we continue to read a book that bores us because it has now been purchased, or we continue to watch a series that we are not passionate about just because we have now reached the halfway point. It also happens that we continue to remain within a work environment that does not satisfy us because we have already invested a lot of time and resources. In short, the lost costs fallacy can extend to any scenario of everyday life and influence personal and relational choices. Giving up would be a waste and giving up would mean officially sanctioning the loss. To fully understand this cognitive bias, you need to take a look at how the brain thinks. Our brain organ is not programmed to optimize happiness, but to avoid losses. Loss aversion is a powerful principle: Losing something hurts us more than gaining it is rewarding. This is why, when we have invested time, energy, money or emotions, the idea of ”throwing it all away” is a waste that we are not willing to accept and which causes us real pain (neuroscientific studies show that the brain areas activated by the loss are the same ones involved in physical pain!). The brain therefore, avoid making us suffer that sense of lack and it induces us to stay even when it is not convenient to do sostripping itself of its rational guise. Thus what is defined is created cognitive dissonance: the psychological distress that occurs when our actions are not consistent with what we know or think. In other words, a part of us knows that the situation (the project, the book or the relationship) is no longer good for us or we don’t like it, but the other part continues to invest; one is born internal tension difficult to bear. To reduce it, the mind seeks justifications: “after all, it’s not that bad”, “after everything I’ve done, I can’t give up now”, “all relationships have ups and downs”. In this way, the dissonance is reduced, but only temporarily; you get stuck in a painful comfort zonewhere staying seems less tiring than facing the reality of loss.
When the sunk cost fallacy bias affects romantic relationships
Studies show that the lost cost fallacy is most powerful when we are emotionally involved. In fact, thanks to other social experiments, we know that people who dedicate more time to an activity tend to continue it even when they know that it does not bring benefits. The same thing happens in relationships: the more we identify with the bond, the more difficult it becomes to abandon iteven if it hurts us. A study of Johnson and Rubsbult (1989) showed that the perceived level of commitment pushes many individuals to remain in unsatisfactory relationships, in order not to lose what they have built. Indeed, in love relationships we invest time, energy, routines, personal sacrifices and projects; consequently, the longer or more intense the relationship, the more the idea is generated that all that experience and commitment “must be worth it”. Thus, even if relational well-being weakens or relationship problems cause us suffering, leaving becomes difficult not because love is still alive, but because we feel we have to justify the past investment: “I have invested a lot, so I can’t leave”, “we have spent too much time together to throw everything away”, “after everything I have done for him/her…”.
Points of contact and differences with emotional dependence
At this point another dynamic comes into play, different but often intertwined: emotional dependence. However, it is very important to clarify that they are not the same thing. The lost cost fallacy is a cognitive biasthat is, an error in the way the brain evaluates decisions: instead of looking forward, we remain anchored to the past because we don’t want to waste what we have invested. Emotional addiction, on the other hand, is a complex psychological disorder involving identity, self-esteem and attachment. It’s not just a distortion of thinking, but a deep emotional structure, often rooted in early attachment experiences, in the fear of being alone or of not being loved. We could say that:
- the lost cost fallacy it arises from the rational mind, which seeks coherence and justifies past choices;
- emotional dependence it arises from the emotional mind, which fears abandonment and confuses suffering with love.
The main difference is in level of involvement:
- in the fallacy, the person stays despite knowing they are not satisfied (“I’m staying because I can’t throw away everything I’ve done”);
- in emotional dependence, the person stays because they cannot imagine themselves without the otherwhich is a source of individual and identity legitimation (“I can’t live without him/her”, “I must manage to make myself loved at all costs”).
In many cases however, the two phenomena are intertwined: those who experience an emotional dependence can use the lost costs fallacy as a rational justification for staying, while those who fall into the fallacy can slowly develop a form of emotional dependence because the longer they stay, the more they become attached.
Lost cost fallacy
