What is the sunk cost fallacy?
Staying because of what it already cost — Arkes and Blumer's classic finding, and why it governs relationships and careers, not just money. A short, precise definition.
The sunk cost fallacy is continuing something because of what it has already cost, rather than what it will bring from here. Arkes and Blumer documented it in 1985: people finish courses they hate, sit through films they dislike, keep funding failing projects — because stopping would "waste" what is spent. But the spending is unrecoverable either way; the only question the future answers is from here.
Money is the textbook example; lives are the real one. "We've been together seven years" gets offered as the argument for an eighth. Seven years in a career becomes the reason for a tenth revision of the same unhappiness.
The nuance: not all persistence is fallacy — commitment through a hard season can be exactly right. The tell is when past cost is the only reason left standing.
In Arkhetia this concept doesn't stay a definition — it meets you in your sessions, tied to a moment in your own story.
Reading about a pattern is one thing. Seeing where it runs your own life is another. Arkhetia works through these lenses — with you.
Begin