It has always been said that change is hard. While it may seem superficial, there might just be some science behind why people resist change. Research has been revealing the science behind why people, and even mice, tend to settle. Looking into this concept of "sunk costs," people, once making an initial commitment, tend to settle in this commitment despite being presented with better options.
Sweis’ research on persistence, he looks into the way that sensitivity to sunk costs has similarities across different species. Specifically, it was found that mice, rats, and humans have similarities in decision making in regards to sunk costs, with all species having a high sensitivity. Humans, and seemingly other species, tend to settle for sunk costs even when there are better alternatives. The research made a distinction between sunk costs and the deliberation process of commitments. They specifically outlined different zones. The offer zone encompassed the initial commitment while the wait zone involved secondary reevaluations. They found that decision making processes differ between the wait zone and the offer zone. They found that in the wait zone, the difference species were more susceptible to sunk costs compared to the offer zone where they were not at all susceptible to sunk costs. So, this research reveals some of the processes behind why people settle and find it harder to change course to new paths once they have already chosen one. Is this based simply on laziness or is this a learned behavior? Why is it that humans find value in commitment, even if it doesn’t serve them? Furthermore, the research reveals how they found that the two zones, the wait and offer zone, rely on separate processes. The wait zone decisions were dependent on recent states, and future research could discern if these "states" were quantified by emotional being, life experiences , or something more. The offer zone decisions were driven by deliberate mechanisms that stimulate future outcomes constructed from a more extensive knowledge base of past experiences. It seems that their research confirms the hesitancy for people to commit initially, often taking into account all of the information, but once people have committed, they rely wholly on their initial findings despite being presented alternative and contradicting information.
In another article, the researchers looked more closely at this sunk cost effect in committed relationships. The results of this study revealed that there was a higher likelihood that people stay in unhappy relationships when money and effort, and not necessarily time, had been previously invested into the relationships. Furthermore, they looked closely at the variable of time and results revealed that there is not just a sunk cost effect but also a sunk time effect. Participants were willing to invest more time in an unhappy relationship particularly when time had already been invested into the relationship. This research refers to this commitment and unwillingness for change as an inability to choose the logical response and stop investing into a clearly failing path of action. It reveals how people seem to have a inward responsibility towards an initial decision. The study even showed how negative feedback on someone's failing investment resulted in additional commitment. A possible explanation that the researchers bring up is that the sunk cost effect could be a form of self-control that is being heightened over acts of impulsivity. With research revealing how younger people commit more to the sunk cost effect, this explanation of impulsivity could be a potential reason. The research looked closely at intimate and committed relationships and the results found similar results that investments in time, effort, and money increased the likelihood that a person would remain in an unhappy relationship. It is interesting to note that a potential limitation and reasoning that some people remain in unhappy relationships is that they may feel leaving the relationship is the worse choice - that maybe it's not a sunk cost, rather it is choosing between what is better of two bad options.
Overall, the two research studies looked closely into sunk costs and how commitment to things and people, even if there are better options, can only be increased when other factors and investments are made into things such as time and money already spent. It would be interesting to see future research on how people can more intentionally be open to change and being able to be more willing to choose another path.
References
Rego, Sara, et al. “Is There a Sunk Cost Effect in Committed Relationships? - Current Psychology.” SpringerLink, Springer US, 29 Nov. 2016, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-016-9529-9.
Sweiss, Brian M, et al. “Sensitivity to ‘Sunk Costs’ in Mice, Rats, and Humans | Science.” Science , 13 July 2018, www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar8644.
No comments:
Post a Comment