My Theory About Relationships and the Sunk Cost Fallacy
This is how we think things go:
We make perfectly logical, rational decisions based on the future value of your possessions, investments, relationships and experiences.
However, this is how things actually go:
We make decisions based on emotions and feelings, which are tainted by the investment - be it emotional or financial - that we accumulate, and the more we invest in something, the harder it is to let go.
This is something that's known pretty well in the financial world.
If you've invested a million into something, even when the price starts tanking, it can be extremely difficult for you to take your money out to save your ass, because you've invested of your money into it. In other words, the target of your investment becomes important to you because you've put so much on the line.
Should we only make rational decisions, the only thing we would do in the case of a price tank would be to just take out whatever we can, and think of a new investment strategy.
But, as it has turned out for us, considering ourselves rational is the most irrational thing we do as a species.
I've come up with a theory regarding the above described sunken cost fallacy and abusive relationships.
I've never read this anywhere, I've just come up with it myself, so don't quote me on this.
But if it's hard for us to minimize our losses from a bad investment just because the investment was big enough, wouldn't it make sense that it's hard to abandon and abusive relationship because of the victim party's large investment into said relationship?
It's often wondered out loud by people how it's weird that abused partners don't just up and leave. Well, I've always felt that it's obvious they're not thinking logically. So, something has to be there that's causing the seemingly irrational behavior.
So, my theory is that when the abused person gets beaten in a relationship, that person makes an unknowing investment into the relationship, since suffering from violence and other forms of abuse obviously takes energy and emotional resources, which means that it's an involuntary investment into the relationship.
The way our relationships work in general is very much in line with the sunken cost fallacy; the more we invest of ourselves, the more important the relationship becomes to us. A very common problem in relationships is that there's a lack of balance, since the person who does the most, cares the most. And sometimes the other person doesn't get to do enough to care enough, and eventually the relationship goes sour.
A functioning relationship therefore requires a 50/50 from both partners. That way, it's equally important to both.
So, would it be an impossible thought that when someone is suffering from violence from his or her spouse, it forces that person to constantly think and ponder, fear and suffer so much emotionally that the investment he or she makes becomes so big that the person actually, completely, counterintuitively, becomes extremely attached to that relationship?
If it's true when investing, why not when in a relationship? Economics and love are closer to each other than you think, by the way.
What do you think? Am I completely off base here?
Part of the problem is we ego-invest in our opinions and decisions. Changing our mind represents admitting that we were wrong, which attacks our ego and self-worth. Many people simply avoid having to experience that pain and will stay in that "sunk cost" situation.
YES!!!! I wholeheartedly agree here schattenjaeger!! Also, interesting way to look at abusive or any relationship. It rings of some good truth for me. You know the funny thing though...I once was at a point of wanting to breakup with my partner of four years. It was one of the scariest things I had ever done, because she was my best friend, and I was crazy about her. It was just not allowing me to be what I wanted. The kind of awesome beautiful thing is it took a while, few years, but we were able to restart our friendship, and it's a lot cleaner for both of us, we got to be close again...and with that perspective I realized that in our relationship at the time, there wasn't much room for our friendship any longer.
Thanks for the post, this is a good one!
I think that is definitely a part of it. I also think comfort vs fear plays a large part. When we are in a terrible relationship, it may be terrible, but it is comfortable, because it is what we know and have become familiar with. The unknown can be scary and uncomfortable.
Add to that the fear of "What if the problem is me, or whose to say I won't get into an even worse relationship?" Then there's the fear of how I will look, and what others will think of me if I fail in this relationship. How do I confront the stigma that comes with being the one to end the relationship.
This post hits home for me right now, so I may be personalizing my response too much, but I do think you're right on. There comes a time when you have to be willing to "cut your losses" and walk away.
So, my girlfriend and I sat down to read your post together. I feel the only thing we've come to an agreement upon is the fact that you're not off base. I'd like to lay down my thoughts first.
First off, I agree about the whole investment thing - when someone is so invested into someone else's life it is difficult to pull away. Some find it easier than the rest but that's not the case for the majority of our species. The minority often questions as to why the majority suffers from the simple fact of walking away from something as bad as an abusive partner BUT just like everybody in the entire universe, we have our strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, I feel the whole 50 - 50 is surreal as there is always one partner that's more dominating in the department of giving. To me, this is the case no matter how many cherries you'd like to put on this cake. Lastly, economics might share lots of common grounds with love. This seems easy to comprehend for most as love covers a very wide spectrum, overshadowing economics and etc.
Overall my girlfriend has her own opinion on this - I agree from the above that love plays a huge part in a relationship , Abuse comes in many forms , I've experienced it in my life ,it is something you can't run away from not even a drug could help with the pain that an abuse victim carries . Although talking about it helps very much in my knowledge . There's only a certain amount of people who'd actually listen . My conclusion to this is to read and write as it helps and wouldn't make you feel like you're alone in this world because after all, loneliness kills . Nothing else in the world would make a person happier other than having people who actually love you, in your life.
What i can conclude from this would be to love, just love. For not loving would be the greatest sin. We all have our own kind of issues and for some it happens to be an abusive relationship but there are ways for this to be dealt with. I also hope that one day I'd be able to witness a relationship that would be 50 -50 in my book or even more, to experience one.
**Just thoughts we thought would be helpful, or at least add to someone's life here. Spread the love y'all. Cheers and as Ellen says, " be kind to one another".
I should have been more clear. 50/50 is the ideal, though an unrealistic one. I doubt it can ever be reached completely, but the main point about that is that sometimes it's healthy to let your parner do stuff for the relationship. What I mean is that oftentimes people make the mistake of doing too much for a relationship, leaving the partner with nothing.
And then the relationship doesn't mean as much to the other person.
Two different sets of circumstances.
The one who is being abused was abused as a child and unfortunately equates that with love, and their response to abuse is to try harder. If only they would love enough, then they would be good enough, then the beatings would stop.
This is child logic. It is a coping mechanism developed as a child, and has to be unlearned. And it is a painstakingly slow process
And yes, these people get more attached the more they try.
(btw, a normal person will just leave as soon as abuse starts.)
Relationship sunk cost fallacy is almost the entirely the pervue of men. Men have to screw up their courage to approach a women, and then they invest the time and emotions into that woman. If they were to leave, they would be giving all of that up.
Women, especially attractive women, get approached all of the time. Many women have an alternative man waiting in the wings.
Women's hypergamous nature also insists that she trade up if possible.
So, to a woman, they do not consider the relationship equity as anything important.
I think this is a very insightful way of looking at things. So many people allow the sunken costs, the inertia of years and habit, and maybe even fear of seeming wrong about something, like you suggest, to trap them. But, the thing about economics is it assumes we are rational; and we clearly are not rational--or, only to a certain extent, within the limited bubble of vision we can manage to clear inside the fog of emotions, competing social demands, and general necessities of life that we must all contend with.
I believe you are right; this is one of the reasons why people stay in abusive relationships. Other reasons might include what they tend to associate violence with. For example, if a girl had an abusive father, she might have associated his behaviour with "manliness", since he was her first role model for how men should be. So she might be attracted to men who impose their power later on. This is only an example, as many factors can contribute. But you have a point, and there are many experiments showing how much more we value something when a) we are invested in it and b) we possess it (vs people who wanted it equally but didn't get the chance to possess it).
Ah, I've never thought of how possessing, in and of itself, makes us value something more, but of course it does, you're right. I think we tend to think that we value something we possess just because of its functionality, but possessing by itself can also make us value something. Weird, but true.
I was reading the other day about an experiment. You can find a summary here. There were some people who really wanted to get tickets to an important basketball game and there was something like a competition to get them, ending in them having to camp out for a week and be always available, and then enter a lottery too. They all tried hard but only some of them managed to get the tickets. The experimenters then asked those who had won the tickets how much they were willing to sell them for. They gave a really high price, with an adequate excuse (this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance, I will have stories to tell my children, etc). They then asked the people who hadn't won how much they were willing to pay for them. Their proposed prices were way lower, and they also had excuses for that (I can use all that money to travel or do something more useful). It's impressive how much more we value something, just because we own it.
Interesting point of view and you are not off base. Actually, more and more scientists are talking about the source of our love to be how much we give not so much we receive. So your logic is quite good, with the unfortunate effect in abusive relationships (there are other aspects here, but you've spotted one of the most important). So, the more you give, the more you love and the harder it is to give up.
Good job