Sunk costs heavily impact decision-making across species, whether it is money, time, resources, there is always a drive to keep pursuing a goal once one is already invested so heavily in it. For some people, it is finishing college with a major they do not really care about but have already committed years and thousands of dollars into schooling, for others it is riding out a detrimental dip in a stock, hoping it bounces back to the green since they have so much money already invested. Whatever the investment may be, there is a certain drive species have, and evaluation of investment already put forth that impacts what one chooses to pursue. An addict may find it hard to quit when they have already sunk thousands into their addiction, ruined their relationships and future career opportunities, all of this factors in since the ruining of relationships is inherently a cost.
Consulting a neuroscience research paper by Dr. Brain Sweis and colleagues gives a glimpse into the idea behind sunk costs. In the paper, “Sensitivity to “sunk costs” in mice, rats, and humans” by Dr. Sweis, et al, proposes that decisions should be made on the outcome and not the investment necessary, such that as long as the outcome is greater than the investment should not be considered. However, in the research done, Dr. Sweis and colleagues utilized a foraging task, and discovered the phenomenon that sunk costs are universal in species not just humans alone. An example of this from the paper is that when a test subject waited for a reward, the more time they invested in waiting, the more likely they were to continue pursuing the waiting for the reward in various tasks such as Restaurant Row for mice and rats, or web-surf task for humans. Each task required a foraging component with waiting being the cost that was invested. Overall, this paper shows that rationality was utilized in evaluation before initial investment, and as investment then increased, the decision-making of different species were skewed by the sunk cost fallacy.
An article posted on FHE Health Rehab, by Chris Foy titled, “Gambling Addiction and The Sunk Cost Fallacy” talks about how gambling addiction is fueled by the sunk cost fallacy. The article discusses how no matter the rules of the game, the casino always has the edge, that they will always come out on top of the player due to laws of probabilities, and that this is logically obvious because casinos are business and they need to make money to stay in business, so no matter what a gambler may think they know or how to beat the system, this is technically impossible. The article also mentions how both the sunk cost fallacy and addiction are both irrational choices, because in sunk cost, the only consideration should be the outcome, and addiction, though damaging, people and animals continue to engage in it. A gambler thinks that since they invested thousands, if not millions into gambling, that because of their investment they will get that money back, but as seen in the case of gambling destroying lives, this is not true. That no matter how much a person invests, their odds never change, they are always going to lose no matter what, and this is obvious to non-gambling addicts that the odds remain the same, but once sunk costs are introduced, the bias takes over and causes one to keep investing.
Understanding sunk costs is an important and pervasive phenomenon that can be especially useful in the realm of not just gambling addiction, but all addiction. Since we value so heavily what we have already initially invested, it is of paramount importance to understand this bias and its influence on decisions. In addiction one feels bound to their addiction, they have already destroyed their lives, drained their bank account, ruined relationships, gotten in trouble with the law, or whatever the cost may be, yet they continue the addiction. The answer to the question of “why?” seems so obvious, why do they not simply just quit because the reward of quitting is far greater than what has been invested into addiction. This si where research on sunk costs comes in, that we like most species, value our investment so heavily. Understanding this piece not just in addiction but in all areas is critical so to not get dragged down by this fallacy in non-addictive situations like pursuing a career that is destroying one’s mental health, and to disregard what has been invested instead for what will be more beneficial.
Works Cited
Foy, C. (2018, December 31). Gambling addiction & the sunk cost fallacy. FHE Health. https://fherehab.com/news/gambling-addiction-the-sunk-cost-fallacy/
Sweis, B. M., Abram, S. V., Schmidt, B. J., Seeland, K. D., MacDonald, A. W., Thomas, M. J., & Redish, A. D. (2018). Sensitivity to “sunk costs” in mice, rats, and humans. Science, 361(6398), 178–181. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar8644
No comments:
Post a Comment