Sunk Cost and Commitment Escalation

Why past investment distorts future decisions and how this creates patterns of escalating commitment to failing courses of action.

Why Past Investment Distorts Future Decisions

The more a company has invested in a failing course of action, the harder it becomes to stop — not because continuing makes economic sense, but because past investment creates psychological and organizational pressure to persist. This is the sunk cost effect: the tendency to factor irrecoverable past costs into decisions about future action.

The related phenomenon of commitment escalation describes how initial commitment increases the probability of continued commitment, even as evidence accumulates that the course of action is failing. Together, they create a structural bias toward continuation that operates independently of the merits of continuing.

Understanding these as structural patterns rather than individual failings reveals their persistence. They operate through psychological, organizational, and social channels simultaneously — the executive who championed the investment cannot easily advocate its abandonment, the organization that has publicly committed to a strategy cannot easily reverse course, and the team that has invested years of effort resists the conclusion that the effort was wasted. This multi-channel reinforcement makes sunk cost bias resistant to simple correction.

Core Concept

A sunk cost is any expenditure that has occurred and cannot be recovered. Once resources are spent, they are gone regardless of what happens next. The rational framework for future decisions considers only future costs and future benefits. Past expenditure is relevant only as information that might update estimates of future outcomes, not as a cost that future action must justify.

In practice, sunk costs exert powerful influence through multiple channels. Psychologically, abandoning a project means accepting that the past investment was wasted, which triggers loss aversion. Organizationally, the people who championed the investment have career incentives to see it succeed and reputational costs if it is abandoned. Socially, admitting failure carries stigma that continuation avoids, at least temporarily.

Commitment escalation extends this pattern over time. Each additional investment increases the total sunk cost, which increases the psychological and organizational pressure to continue. The process is self-reinforcing: investment leads to commitment, commitment leads to further investment, further investment deepens commitment. Each cycle makes abandonment more psychologically and organizationally costly, independent of the project's actual prospects.

The escalation is amplified when the outcome is uncertain and when the decision-maker is personally identified with the original commitment. Uncertainty provides a basis for optimistic reinterpretation: perhaps the next phase will reveal the viability that previous phases did not. Personal identification with the project means that its failure reflects on the decision-maker, creating incentive to continue investing in the hope of vindication rather than accepting failure and redirecting resources.

Structural Patterns

• Psychological Anchoring to Past Investment — The total amount invested becomes an anchor that influences how future investment is evaluated. Additional spending feels incremental relative to the existing total, even when the incremental investment is substantial in absolute terms.
• Reputational Lock-In — Decision-makers who championed the initial investment face personal consequences if it is abandoned. The career incentive to continue often exceeds the organizational incentive to stop, creating structural misalignment between individual and organizational interests.
• Optimistic Reframing — As evidence against the project accumulates, supporters reinterpret it: the market is not ready yet, the technology needs one more iteration, the strategy requires more time. Each reframing provides justification for continued investment while deferring the reckoning.
• Threshold Rationalization — Decision-makers set informal thresholds for additional investment. Once a threshold is reached, a new one is set slightly beyond. The process of moving the goalpost can continue indefinitely, with each individual extension seeming modest relative to the total already invested.
• Information Filtering — Committed participants tend to weight confirming information more heavily than disconfirming information. Evidence that supports continuation is accepted; evidence that suggests abandonment is scrutinized more critically. This filtering is often unconscious and can persist even among sophisticated decision-makers.
• Social Reinforcement — Within organizations, team members working on a project develop shared commitment that reinforces individual commitment. Questioning the project's viability becomes socially costly. The group dynamic amplifies the individual tendency to continue.

Examples

Large infrastructure projects frequently exhibit commitment escalation. Initial cost estimates prove insufficient, timelines extend, and technical challenges emerge that were not anticipated. At each decision point, the choice is framed as whether to continue with additional investment or to abandon the work already completed. The accumulated investment makes abandonment increasingly unpalatable, and projects continue to absorb resources well beyond original estimates. The structural dynamic is that each phase's sunk cost makes the next phase's continuation more likely, regardless of whether the project's ultimate viability has improved.

Corporate acquisitions demonstrate the pattern in strategic contexts. After paying a substantial premium to acquire a company, the acquirer discovers integration challenges, cultural incompatibilities, or market conditions that make the expected synergies unlikely. The rational response would be to cut losses, but the acquisition price becomes a sunk cost that anchors expectations. Additional investment in integration, restructuring, or market development is justified as necessary to realize the value of the original investment. The original price paid, which cannot be recovered, continues to influence decisions about future spending.

Product development in technology companies illustrates the pattern at the operational level. A product that has consumed years of engineering time and significant budget but fails to achieve market traction faces the continuation decision repeatedly. Each quarter, the team argues that the next feature, the next market segment, or the next iteration will produce the breakthrough. The sunk engineering investment makes it psychologically and organizationally difficult to reallocate those resources to more promising opportunities, even when the data suggests the product has failed to find its market.

Risks and Misunderstandings

The most common misunderstanding is that recognizing sunk cost fallacy is sufficient to avoid it. Intellectual understanding of the concept does not eliminate its influence on decisions. The psychological, organizational, and social mechanisms that drive commitment escalation operate even when participants are aware of the pattern. Structural safeguards, such as independent review, predetermined abandonment criteria, or separating the decision to continue from the people who made the initial commitment, are more effective than awareness alone.

Another mistake is treating all continuation as irrational. Sometimes continuing an investment that has not yet paid off is the right decision. Genuine learning may have occurred. Conditions may have changed in the project's favor. The distinguishing question is whether the decision to continue is based on future expected returns or on the desire to justify past investment. The same action, continuing, can be rational or irrational depending on the reasoning behind it.

It is also tempting to apply sunk cost thinking too aggressively, abandoning investments at the first sign of difficulty. Some valuable endeavors require sustained commitment through challenging periods. The structural observation is that past investment should not drive future decisions, not that all past investments should be abandoned. The quality of the future opportunity, assessed independently of past spending, determines the appropriate course.

What Investors Can Learn

• Separate past investment from future decisions — Whether evaluating a personal portfolio position or a company's strategic investment, the relevant question is what the future expected return is relative to future costs, not whether past spending can be justified.
• Watch for escalation patterns in companies — Projects that repeatedly receive additional funding beyond original estimates, acquisitions followed by expanding integration budgets, or strategies that are continuously given more time may exhibit commitment escalation at the organizational level.
• Consider who is making the continuation decision — When the same people who championed the initial investment are evaluating whether to continue, the structural incentive to continue is strong regardless of the project's merits. Independent evaluation provides a structural check.
• Look for predetermined criteria — Organizations that establish clear criteria for success and abandonment before making investments are structurally less susceptible to escalation than those that evaluate continuation ad hoc.
• Evaluate opportunity cost — Resources devoted to continuing a failing investment are unavailable for other uses. The opportunity cost of continuation, what those resources could produce elsewhere, is often the most compelling argument for abandonment.

Inside CompanyGraph

View this perspective inside CompanyGraph.