Current Psychology

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 508–519 | Cite as

Is there a Sunk Cost Effect in Committed Relationships?

  • Sara Rego
  • Joana Arantes
  • Paula MagalhãesEmail author


The sunk cost effect occurs when a prior investment in one option leads to a continuous investment in that option, despite not being the best decision. The aim of the present paper was to study the role of the sunk cost effect in committed relationships. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 902) were presented with an unhappy relationship scenario in which they needed to make a choice: to stay or end the relationship. Results showed that the likelihood of participants staying in the relationship was higher when money and effort, but not time, had been previously invested in that relationship. In Experiment 2, the time investment was manipulated and the sunk cost was evaluated using a different methodology. Specifically, instead of having a dichotomous decision, participants (N = 275) choose how much time they would be willing to invest in the relationship. Results revealed a sunk time effect, that is, participants were willing to invest more time in a relationship in which more time had already been invested.


Sunk cost effect Time Effort Money Committed relationships 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Arkes, H. R. (1996). The psychology of waste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects: are humans less rational than lower animals? Psychological Bulletin, 125, 591–600. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornstein, B. H., & Chapman, G. B. (1995). Learning lessons from sunk costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 251–269. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.1.4.251.Google Scholar
  5. Bornstein, B. H., Emler, C., & Chapman, G. B. (1999). Rationality in medical treatment decisions : is there a sunk-cost effect ? Social Science and Medicine, 49, 215–222. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00284.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Braverman, J. A., & Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. (2012). Assessment of the sunk-cost effect in clinical decision-making. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 186–192. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, J., Mathews, P. H., & Brown, A. D. (2005). The determinants of sunk cost sensitivity in Students. Middlebury College Economics Discussion Paper NO05–24.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, M. D. (2009). Sunk cost and commitment to dates arranged online. Current Psychology, 28, 45–54. doi: 10.1007/s12144-009-9042-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman, M. D. (2010). Sunk cost, emotion, and commitment to education. Current Psychology, 29, 121–134. doi: 10.1007/s12144-010-9094-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunha, M., & Caldieraro, F. (2009). Sunk-cost effects on purely behavioral investments. Cognitive Science, 3, 105–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01005.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eurostat Statistics Explained (2016). Marriage and divorce statistics. Retrieved from
  12. Fennema, M. G., & Perkins, J. D. (2008). Mental budgeting versus marginal decision making: training, experience and justification effects on decisions involving sunk costs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 225–239. doi: 10.1002/bdm.585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garland, H., Sandefur, C. A., & Rogers, A. C. (1990). De-escalation of commitment in oil exploration: when sunk costs and negative feedback coincide. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 721–727. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goddard, H. W. (2007). Commitment in healthy relationships. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues [Online], 12 (1). Available from:
  15. Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2008) Sunken costs and desired plans: examining different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1639–1652.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Huston, T. L. (2009) What’s love got to do with it? Why some marriages succeed and others fail. Personal Relationships, 16(3), 301–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. doi: 10.2307/1914185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalmijn, M. (2015). How childhood circumstances moderate the long-term impact of divorce on father-child relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 921938. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keasey, K., & Moon, P. (2000). Sunk cost effects: a test of the importance of context. Economic Letters, 66, 55–58. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00179-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klaczynski, P. A., & Cottrell, J. M. (2004). A dual-process approach to cognitive development: the case of children’s understanding of sunk cost decisions. Thinking & Reasoning, 10, 147–174. doi: 10.1080/13546780442000042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macaskill, A. C., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2012). Providing a reinforcement history that reduces the sunk cost effect. Behavioural Processes, 89, 212–218. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.11.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Magalhães, P., & White, K. G. (2013). Sunk cost and work ethic effects reflect suboptimal choice between different work requirements. Behavioural Processes, 94, 55–59. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.12.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Magalhães, P., & White, K. G. (2014). The effect of a prior investment on choice: the sunk cost effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 22–37. doi: 10.1037/xan0000007.Google Scholar
  25. Moon, H. (2001). Looking forward and looking back: integrating completion and sunk-cost effects within an escalation-of-commitment progress decision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 104–113. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2005). The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 1–13. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2005.21-04.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2007). The role of discriminative stimuli in the sunk cost effect. Mexican Journal of Behavior Anaylsis, 33, 19–29.Google Scholar
  28. Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2009). The sunk-time effect: an exploration. Journal of Behavior Decision Making, 270, 252–270. doi: 10.1002/bdm.624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rachlin, H. (2000). The science of self-control. Harvard University press.Google Scholar
  30. Skerrett, K., & Fergus, K. (2015). Couple resilience: emerging perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Soman, D. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs : why time is not like money. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 169–186. doi: 10.1002/bdm.624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Staw, B. M., & Fox, V. F. (1977). Escalation: the determinants of commitment to a chosen course of action. Human Relations, 30, 431–450. doi: 10.1177/001872677703000503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Staw, B. M., & Hoang, H. (1995). Sunk costs in the NBA: why draft order affects playing time and survival in professional basketball. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 474–494. doi: 10.2307/2393794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strough, J., Mehta, C. M., McFall, J. P., & Schuller, K. L. (2008). Are older adults less subject to the sunk-cost fallacy than younger adults? Psychological Science, 19, 650–652. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02138.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59, S251–S278. doi: 10.1086/296365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weaver, J. M., & Schofield, T. J. (2015). Mediation and moderation of divorce effects on children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 39–48. doi: 10.1037/fam0000043.
  38. Yoder, C. Y., Mancha, R., & Agrawal, N. (2014). Culture-related factors affect sunk cost bias. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Basic Psychology, School of PsychologyUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations