Does this phenomenon have a name (answered)

[Mike 03]

I promise I tried to Google this using all sorts of terms and examples but struck out. I think it's related to Game Theory, and the reason I'm interested in it is to see if it explains Trump's base and republicans refusing to admit he's a loser and abandon him.

Examples of this concept:

A gambler who is losing but keeps gambling anyway, even to the point of placing higher and higher bets.

An investor invested in a losing stock who keeps adding to his holdings, expecting that it "has to rise" eventually.

Any entrepreneur whose business is failing but who keeps expending capital rather than cut his or her losses and try something else.

Does anybody know what phenomenon this describes, or what it is called?

EDIT/CORRECTION: This is not a game theory concept.

[unblock]

1. the sunk costs fallacy

[Mike 03]

3. Thank you!

I can't believe how quickly you can get an answer around here!

[Hugin]

7. AKA The Concord Fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

"In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost (also known as retrospective cost) is a cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be avoided if action is taken. In other words, a sunk cost is a sum paid in the past that is no longer relevant to decisions about the future. Even though economists argue that sunk costs are no longer relevant to future rational decisionmaking, in everyday life, people often take previous expenditures, say, on repairing a car or house into their future decisions regarding those properties."

I agree this is a component of it... It's also because they are emotionally invested in something and it damages their ego to find they are wrong or have been misled.

BUT, in the case of the rabid trumpanzees. It's because they are bigots. There's another thread floating around here claiming 25% of Old Yeller's supporters would still support him after he did "almost" anything. Well, I suspect that "almost" falls squarely on him doing something not bigoted. In fact, I'd bet money on it.

[targetpractice]

2. Sunk cost fallacy n/t

[Mike 03]

5. Thank you!!! I'm grateful!

[zaj]

4. Dunning Krueger Effect

It's related to the Dunning Krueger Effect.

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities.

[Mike 03]

6. Thank you. I'll check this out!

[Mike 03]

8. This is interesting too and related: Escalation of Commitment

From Wikipedia:

Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative outcomes from a decision, action, or investment nevertheless continues the behavior instead of altering course. The actor maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions.[1]

Economists and behavioral scientists use a related term, sunk-cost fallacy, to describe the justification of increased investment of money or effort in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk cost&quot despite new evidence suggesting that the future cost of continuing the behavior outweighs the expected benefit.

In sociology, irrational escalation of commitment or commitment bias describe similar behaviors. The phenomenon and the sentiment underlying them are reflected in such proverbial images as "throwing good money after bad" or "in for a penny, in for a pound", or "It's never the wrong time to make the right decision."

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment

[Mike 03]

12. More from "Escalation of Commitment"

Under "Psychology"

Optimism and belief that one has control over what will still be positive outcomes lead to continued self-justification of commitment to actions. People add to their initial personal investments in the hope they will overcome currently negative results. This was illustrated in a case study by Staw, where providing business students with manipulated responsibilities for initial decisions and their outcomes resulted in the greatest commitment to increased actions and resources when the initial decision assigned was made directly by the student with poor outcomes.[1] In these instances, people take further risk in an attempt to avoid further problems. This is even more likely when subjects view current issues as having unstable reasoning rather than stable reasoning, or when the individual is unwilling to admit mistakes. [4] They then believe the situation will stabilize or turn around. Confirmation bias can also lead to escalation of commitment as individuals are then less likely to recognize the negative results of their decisions.[8] On the other hand, if the results are recognized, they can be blamed on unforeseeable events occurring during the course of the project.

The effect of sunk costs is often seen escalating commitment. When the amount of investment is greater and can not be recovered, the desire to avoid complete loss of those resources and keeping with impression management prompts continued investment over pulling out.[8] Relatedly, as invested resources can include time, closeness to completion of a project yields similar results. More value is placed on project when they are early or late in their process due to the clarity of completion goals at those points.[12] It's more likely that risks will be taken at these points than in a project closer to a visible midpoint.

[zaj]

9. The other thing...

... is that the way Trump chose to campaign, he subltly unlocked this unavowed white supremacist movement. These fears and grievances that people had against the man, were turned on a vulnerable population.

Since he's the first and only national figure (so unhinged, stupid and desperate to be) willing to play this racist card, he's treated like a savior for that community of people he activated.

Once you flip that switch to racial blame, it's takes a huge amount of effort to undo that for any one person. Then to do it for millions upon millions?

Doubling down on him is easier than confronting the shame of your own imorality in supporting him.

[Mike 03]

13. Yes, yes..

Hope I've got this right: recently a police officer (former or off-duty) was arrested and he yelled something like, "Trump is the last hope for white people."

[Claritie Pixie]

10. Human nature? Not sure of an actual term but

those who continue to engage in risky behavior even when the results are detrimental have an inability to truly understand the nature of risk. They rationalize their unhealthy habits and have a genetic predisposition to addiction.

Maybe it's denial, or just plain stupidity.

[Loki Liesmith]

11. Not game theory though

Sunk costs is a psychological phenomenon that comes in part from misunderstanding probability...I.e. that independent events are somehow correlated...so after a long losing streak you are somehow “due”.

[Mike 03]

14. Thank you for the clarification!