Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In other words, people should not let sunk costs influence their decisions; sunk costs are irrelevant to rational decisions. Thus, if a new factory was originally projected to cost $100 million, and yield $120 million in value, and after $30 million is spent on it the value projection falls to $65 million, the company should abandon the project ...
Economists and behavioral scientists use a related term, sunk-cost fallacy, to describe the justification of increased investment of money or effort in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk cost") despite new evidence suggesting that the future cost of continuing the behavior outweighs the expected benefit.
Escalation of commitment, irrational escalation, or sunk cost fallacy, where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it. [65]
“The sunk-cost fallacy refers to the tendency humans have to continue investing in a failing endeavor even when the costs and commitment spent outweigh the benefits,” explains Sarah Kelleher ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Sunk costs fallacy - refusal to leave a situation because you have already put large amounts of time or effort into it- for example trying to jump over a wall you physically cannot jump over because you have already spent an hour trying to jump.
Gambler's fallacy (aka sunk cost bias), the failure to reset one's expectations based on one's current situation. For example, refusing to pay again to purchase a replacement for a lost ticket to a desired entertainment, or, refusing to sell a sizable long stock position in a rapidly falling market.