First, thank you for your comment! I appreciate all new voices on the blog!

Second, I had not previously heard of the “Commitment and Consistency” principles. However, as you suggested, I did a quick Google search. Admittedly, I only read a brief description of the principles and I do agree to some extent. However, these principles don’t, in my mind, jibe with the idea of “sunk cost fallacy.”

The sunk cost fallacy really deals with how you approach something from your own point of view. It deals with why we continue to do something that isn’t working. There is, of course, an element of how we will look to others, but for the most part it is how we deceive ourselves (I go into this in more detail in part 2.)

It appeared to me that the Commitment and Consistency is more about an idea that starts with us, but is taken over by others. Even if we realize it’s not working for us, we still persist because it’s really no longer in our control.

Maybe I didn’t understand the full implications of Commitment and Consistency, but that’s my initial take on the subject.

As for financial cost in a business venture, I agree that this is the main application of the principle of sunk cost. However, given that business ventures are based on the actions and emotions of people, not just systems, the sunk cost fallacy is pretty easy to extend to other areas of our life as well.

Thanks again for stopping by and for the chance to debate!

Have you read about the principles of “Commitment and Consistency”? Do a Google search for this – Robert Cialdini put out a great book on the topic (titled: Influence).

It looks at some extreme case studies – including alien landing cults.

(The Weight Watchers example you raised looks like “Social Proof” too – also raised in the book)

Interesting read.

I enjoyed your insights on sunk costs. For me personally, it’s financial cost in a business venture that isn’t working… Eventually I end up doing nothing out of confusion and internal conflict.