The feeling that our future behaviors must align with what we have said and done in the past severely compromises our ability to make good decisions. This is especially true when our past choices have led to unfavorable outcomes. While it goes against our best interest, we often engage in an irrational escalation of commitment, meaning we continue investing our time or resources into something despite facing increasingly negative outcomes. We continue engaging in behaviors that may have made sense in the past but are no longer rational, given the information we have now. Think of people who continue funneling money into a failing business or stick with a restrictive diet plan that isn’t working but is actually making them feel worse.

Furthermore, it can be problematic when our past behaviors no longer align with our current values. This can create a discrepancy between our desire to remain consistent with our past commitments and a need to act in a way that aligns with our beliefs. Perhaps we’ve always voted for a certain political party, but our values have evolved, and now we identify more closely with another option. The commitment bias can cause us to continue voting for the same party even if it's no longer compatible with our values. It can even make us resistant to beliefs or ideas that contradict our previous behavior, making it difficult to change our stance on important issues.

Refusing to change one’s stance may not only lead to undesirable results but can also act as a barrier to personal growth. We might stay in jobs, educational paths, or relationships that no longer make sense with our goals. Holding onto support for our initial actions, like enrolling in a certain academic program or starting down a specific career path, causes us to miss out on new opportunities. Of course, we don’t have to align our behaviors with our previous decisions. The ability to acknowledge flaws in our past behaviors to better ourselves is incredibly adaptive. It will ultimately gain us greater self-insight and help us make decisions more critically and logically.

Commitment bias can become an even greater issue when someone in a position of power exhibits it. Since commitment bias can result in poor decision-making and these kinds of decisions are often important ones, this is cause for concern. It has been suggested that this occurs in organizations where the decision-maker is questioning their status in the social hierarchy. Researchers also contend that this behavior is common when governmental policies are being put forth, and the person tasked with making the decision is “anxious about [their] standing among constituents.”¹ It’s hard to blame them—we tend to trust decision-makers more easily when they escalate commitment. In one study, participants rated CEOs as more trustworthy when they decided to continue spending money on product development rather than cut their losses after learning that a competitor had a better product.¹² Not only does commitment bias cause individual decision-makers to stay the course in spite of negative consequences, but this irrational move is often reinforced by people who see this persistence as a sign of strong leadership. Conversely, leaders who decide to change course in light of new information may be seen as indecisive. Frequently shifting gears to make more rational, adaptive decisions ironically erodes our collective trust in leaders, even though this should make us trust them more.

We are susceptible to commitment bias as we are constantly trying to convince ourselves and others that we are rational decision-makers. We do so by maintaining consistency in our actions, as well as by defending our decisions to the people around us, as we feel that this will give us more credence.

Keep it consistent

Early research suggested that commitment bias is partly the result of self-justification. Not only to justify our behavior to ourselves, this bias can also be used to justify our actions when confronted by others. 

The reasonable thing to do when our decisions result in unfavorable outcomes would be to face the consequences and learn how to make better choices going forward. However, this is not always what occurs. When our behavior has negative effects, we often change our attitudes toward the outcome.² For example, if a participant is told to perform a tedious task without sufficient compensation, they will attempt to come up with another reason as to why they participated in the experiment. They may convince themselves that they enjoyed their experience, even if the task was purposefully designed to be as dull as possible. The individual does this to reduce cognitive dissonance, a theory put forth by Festinger.³ 

Barry M. Staw, who was the first to study and describe commitment bias, posits that this attitude shift results from a need for consistency, which seems to act as a motivator for humankind in general.⁴ A lack of consistency causes the uneasy feeling associated with cognitive dissonance. By “changing” how we feel about the outcomes of our behavior, we eliminate that inconsistency and, by extension, our discomfort. 

Saving face

Not only do we attempt to justify our behaviors to ourselves, but we also try to make others see our behaviors as rational. In an attempt to save face, we may defend our behavior to others by trying to convince them that our choice was not bad after all. We may suggest that, while the immediate outcome was unfavorable, this decision will be beneficial in the long term.⁵ This is similar to confirmation bias, a cognitive bias that describes how we selectively look for information that supports our stance while ignoring information that discredits it. In the case of commitment bias, we cherry-pick for information that makes our decision seem like a good one while minimizing, or even disregarding completely, evidence that suggests we made the wrong choice. Thus, commitment bias has more to do with our commitments and actions and less to do with our beliefs.

While our shared desire for consistency pushes us to justify our behavior to ourselves, our need to be considered rational and competent by others motivates us to defend our behavior publicly. This causes us to remain committed to our initial decision because we feel that to do otherwise would call our ability to make sound decisions into question.

Being aware of commitment bias is an advantage in more ways than one. By becoming aware of it, we can begin working towards avoiding it. Since this bias can cause us to make poor decisions, avoiding it can be advantageous. Dismantling this bias is a starting point for personal growth, as doing so allows us to admit when we have made a mistake and learn from our past behavior.

Robert Cialdini describes a second way in which awareness of commitment bias can benefit us in his Six Principles of Persuasion.⁶ Cialdini identified principles that, when used ethically, can increase your persuasiveness. One of these principles is consistency, a factor that underlies commitment bias. Cialdini explained that by having people make a small commitment early on, you increase the chances of them agreeing to make a more significant commitment later. There are many areas where this knowledge of commitment bias may be useful. It can help with anything from making a sale to persuading someone to keep up with their annual visit to the doctor.

Avoiding commitment bias isn’t always easy. For one thing, it involves going against our natural drive for consistency. For another, it causes us to worry that others will think poorly of us for making bad decisions.

The first step to avoiding commitment bias is recognizing that consistency isn’t the be-all and end-all. If you find that certain past behaviors of yours no longer align with your goals or values, there’s no reason to remain committed to them. We’re allowed to grow and change – in fact, it’s encouraged that we do so. Making decisions based solely on a desire for consistency or a fear of shaking things up is irrational. Conscious recognition of that can help us avoid this type of behavior in the future. 

Try to get in the habit of regularly reevaluating your goals. You may find it valuable to ask yourself a simple question: would you make the same commitment again with the information you have now? If not, maybe it’s time to let go and try something new. To avoid commitment bias in a financial context, researcher Chip Heath proposes that people set mental budgets and keep track of their expenses.¹⁴ This approach is conducive to a de-escalation of commitment—the process of reducing invested time or money when things aren’t working out as planned. Deciding how much you’re willing to invest into a certain goal and tracking your expenditures can make it easier to pivot when necessary. 

Furthermore, while we worry that others will think less of us if our decisions lead to negative outcomes, people tend to have more respect for those who can admit that they made a mistake. That being said, there will always be people who disagree with you, so why worry about that? Think back on the example of the college student who is putting off changing their major because they’re worried people will judge them. Perhaps they’re right; they may have friends or family who are surprised or even disappointed by the change. However, the decision to change their major affects no one but themselves, so why should they let the judgment of others hold them back? The key to avoiding commitment bias is to focus on the good that will come from changing your behavior instead of worrying about what others will think of you.

What is the difference between the sunk cost fallacy and the escalation of commitment?

The sunk cost fallacy is closely related to the escalation of commitment, but these two biases have some important differences. The sunk cost fallacy describes our tendency to continue investing in something when it’s no longer rational to do so simply because we’ve already devoted significant resources to it. If we back out now, all that invested time, money, or effort will be for nothing. The sunk cost fallacy is just one component of commitment bias—we explore this in more detail in Example 1 below. Commitment bias is the broader phenomenon where we tend to persist or even increase our investments toward a goal despite evidence that what we’re doing is creating negative outcomes. This is often driven by a desire to justify previous decisions, stay true to our initial commitment, and save face rather than a desire to recover our losses. A victim of the sunk cost fallacy might think, “If I back out now, everything I’ve done so far goes to waste.” On the other hand, someone experiencing commitment bias might think “I need to stick with this decision because backing out now would be highly embarrassing.”

Does commitment bias ever have positive consequences?

While commitment bias often leads to negative outcomes, it can be valuable in some situations. Our tendency to adhere to our original commitments can help us form habits with limited short-term rewards but significant long-term payoffs. This makes it easier to persist through obstacles and setbacks without abandoning our goals at the first sign of trouble—like when launching a business or trying a challenging new hobby. Starting a new exercise routine is another great example here: it’s all pain and no gain at first, but the power of commitment can help us weather this initially unrewarding period to achieve long-term fitness goals.

Making a public commitment is an even better way to ensure you stick to your goals. After all, it’s a lot harder to go back on your initial decision once other people know about it. Disney leveraged this strategy in 2010 by asking hotel guests to make a public pledge stating a commitment to reusing their towels during their stay.¹⁵ Those who signed the pledge were given a “Friends of the Earth” pin to wear. As a result, guests who made the pledge were 25% more likely to reuse their towels, leading to an estimated annual savings of 700,000 gallons of water, or $51,000.

How is commitment bias used in marketing?

Marketers frequently leverage commitment bias to encourage repeat purchases and brand loyalty. The classic “foot-in-the-door” approach is an excellent example.¹⁶ Once a customer agrees to a small request (such as giving their email address in exchange for a promotional code), they are more likely to agree to a larger request (like making a purchase). This technique works because the customer’s first action is a point of commitment, even if it costs them nothing. After making this initial commitment, people feel pressured to stay consistent with their earlier behavior—you gave up your email address for a coupon code, so surely you should use it to buy something!

Loyalty programs and subscription models can further create a sense of commitment to brands. These programs reward people for consistent behavior (repeat purchases) and make customers hesitant about switching to another brand, even if it would mean access to higher-quality products or more savings. Encouraging customer referrals is another commitment-based marketing strategy. Once you recommend a brand to someone else, switching brands means abandoning this public commitment. By promoting referral programs and encouraging customers to share their products on social media, companies make customers feel obligated to stay loyal.

The first description of commitment bias came from Staw’s 1976 paper, “Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action”.⁷ He illustrated how, when our decisions have negative consequences, it seems like the obvious course of action would be to try something else instead, yet, these undesirable outcomes often serve to ground using our initial choice. Staw used the literature on forced compliance studies to support this hypothesis by explaining how, in these kinds of experiments, participants often try to justify their behavior. 

Staw tested his theory by having participants read a case study and make decisions about the allocation of funds within a company in a hypothetical situation. The experimenters manipulated the consequences of the participants' decisions. They were either placed in the “positive outcomes” condition or the “negative outcomes” condition. For those in the former condition, the outcome of their decision about allocating the business’ money was favorable. For those in the latter condition, the outcome was unfavorable; they were told that they had made a significant error. The findings supported Staw’s theory by showing that the participants in the “negative outcomes” condition engaged in commitment bias. Moreover, there was evidence of the participants attempting to justify their behavior to themselves as well as others.⁸

Commitment bias is incredibly prevalent in new product development. Research from Jeffrey B. Schmidt and Roger J. Calantone suggests that those who initially assume leadership roles in the product pipeline are less likely to give up on a product, even when the cost exceeds the value. Not only that, but those who initiate the project are less likely to see its failures compared to those who take leadership later on in product development.¹¹ To avoid this, it is important to continue to seek input as the product develops. By having more people “on the outside” later join the team, one can achieve a varied perspective that can save the company time, money, and resources.  

Artificial intelligence may not be as susceptible to psychological phenomena as humans are, but fallacies similar to commitment bias can still occur. Specifically, “overfitting” seems to be the machine equivalent of the commitment bias. Overfitting occurs when a machine learning model is trained excessively on a specific data set. The training is so rigorous that the model cannot make accurate predictions based on new data. Its commitment to past data impacts decision-making, leading to inaccurate predictions and poor performance. Similarly, commitment bias causes us to rely on our past behavior and values to inform our future choices.

Sunk cost fallacy refers to our need to follow through with something once we’ve invested time and/or money into it. This fallacy falls under the wider umbrella of the commitment bias, as it occurs even when the outcome isn’t one we hoped for. We feel that if we don’t stay committed, our investments will have all been for nothing. This causes us to feel wasteful and to question our ability to make rational decisions. Even though it’s usually not the best course of action, it sometimes feels better to suffer through the negative consequences.

This fallacy originates from economics, where a sunk cost refers to money that has already been spent and cannot be recovered. In economics, you’re not supposed to let sunk costs factor into your decision to continue investing in something. This is sound advice, but we don’t always follow it.

For example, have your eyes ever been bigger than your stomach and caused you to order far too much food at a restaurant? And did you force yourself to eat it all, simply because you were going to have to pay for it either way? This is an example of sunk cost fallacy. You felt the need to overeat in order to get your money’s worth, even though you probably enjoyed your meal less because of it.

Many people could tell you about their grade school experiences with the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Program. This program was put into place in the eighties by a police chief and a school board, with the goal of deterring teens from using drugs, joining gangs, and engaging in violence. The program was usually delivered by police officers, who preached a zero-tolerance approach to drug use, and attempted to teach children good decision-making skills.

A meta-analysis examining several studies on DARE’s effectiveness found that the program has no effect on the likelihood of participants using drugs. Not only that, but it was also found that, despite its popularity, DARE is even less effective than other similar programs.⁹

Even more troubling are the findings from Werch and Owen, which showed that programs similar to DARE and, in one case, even DARE itself, can actually be iatrogenic, that is to say, it can actually increase the likelihood of participants using drugs.¹⁰

Despite this evidence, DARE continues to receive substantial government funding. This is an example of commitment bias as the government has remained committed to this approach to preventing drug use, when the outcomes are clearly unfavorable.

What it is

Commitment bias describes our unwillingness to make decisions that contradict things we have said or done in the past. This is usually seen when the behavior occurs publicly. 

Why it happens

When our past decisions lead to unfavorable outcomes, we feel the need to justify them to ourselves and others. This results in us developing an argument supporting this behavior, which can cause us to change our attitudes toward it.

Example 1 – Sunk cost fallacy

Sunk cost fallacy is a form of commitment bias. It refers to how we feel the need to follow through with something once we’ve invested time and/or money into it. 

Example 2 – DARE

Despite the evidence against its effectiveness, the government continues funding the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Program. This is an example of commitment bias, as it illustrates our continued commitment to a cause despite its unfavorable outcomes.

How to avoid it

To avoid commitment bias, remember that it’s always a better idea to make a decision based on logic and reason than it is to do so just because it’s consistent with your past behavior. Furthermore, instead of worrying about what other people will think of you if you admit you made a mistake, focus on the good that comes from changing your behavior.

What If Your Neighbours Knew Whether You Voted?

Can fostering a sense of commitment make people more likely to vote? This article explores strategies to boost voter turnout, such as asking people about their plans to vote—a simple yet powerful technique that significantly increases the likelihood that they’ll go to the polls. We also explore another interesting question: does reminding people about their own voting records and sharing the voting activity of their neighbors, increase voter turnout? Read the article to find out!

Giving Romans a Voice in Their City’s Budget

In 2019, the City of Rome attempted to engage citizens in participatory budgeting, asking for suggestions on how to best allocate funds for urban beautification projects. City officials contacted TDL to help encourage public participation in this program using behavioral science insights. Check out this article to learn about the framing strategies we devised to create more effective messaging in campaign materials, many of which capitalize on citizens’ commitment to social norms and traditional family values.