The commitment fallacy, also known as escalation of commitment or commitment bias, is a psychological tendency where individuals or groups continue to invest time, money, or effort into a decision or course of action, even when faced with increasingly negative outcomes. This behaviour pattern often leads to irrational decision-making, as people maintain their commitment to align with previous choices or statements rather than altering course based on new evidence or changing circumstances.
Key aspects of the commitment fallacy include:
1. Consistency with past actions: People feel compelled to remain consistent with what they have said or done in the past, especially if these commitments were made publicly.
2. Refusal to accept sunk costs: Individuals often struggle to acknowledge that resources already invested cannot be recovered, leading them to invest more in an attempt to justify the initial investment.
3. Face-saving behavior: The desire to appear consistent and avoid admitting mistakes can drive continued commitment to failing courses of action.
4. Self-justification: Decision-makers tend to recall and follow information that aligns with their past behavior, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of commitment.
5. Risk perception: The framing of a situation in terms of potential losses can influence decision-makers to escalate their commitment in an attempt to avoid or recover from those losses.
The commitment fallacy is closely related to the sunk cost fallacy, with escalation of commitment often being a manifestation of sunk cost reasoning[2][3]. However, while the sunk cost fallacy focuses on the tendency to continue a behavior due to past investments, the commitment fallacy encompasses a broader range of psychological factors driving continued commitment, including self-justification and the desire for consistency.
Understanding and recognizing the commitment fallacy is crucial for effective decision-making in various contexts, from business and politics to personal life. By being aware of this tendency, individuals and organizations can work to implement strategies that allow for more rational evaluation of ongoing projects and investments, potentially avoiding the pitfalls of irrational escalation of commitment.
Citations:
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2214385
[2] https://www.scribbr.co.uk/faqs/difference-between-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-and-escalation-of-commitment/
[3] https://quillbot.com/blog/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-the-difference-between-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-and-escalation-of-commitment/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
[5] https://newristics.com/heuristics-biases/commitment-bias