Investment & Finance
ProCommitment Escalation Check
承諾升級檢查 · Source: Barry Staw / Behavioral Economics
Detecting whether you're escalating commitment to a failing bet — justified only by "I've invested too much"
Core Concept
Commitment escalation is the evolved form of sunk cost fallacy: you're not just continuing a bad investment, you're doubling down. This pattern recurs in organizations and personal decisions: initial commitment → poor results → additional investment to "rescue" → worse results → more investment. Each escalation raises the psychological exit cost.
✓ When to use this
When you notice escalating commitment to a decision, position, or relationship while objective evidence turns against it. Commitment escalation is doubling down to "prove the earlier judgment right" — deeper than sunk cost.
✗ When not to use this
Commitment strengthened by genuinely new evidence is not the trap — that is rational scaling. Distinguish "more certain because evidence got stronger" from "more invested because I am already invested."
Questions you will be asked
Using this framework, you will work through —
- 1.What are you considering escalating commitment to? What is the stated reason for escalating?
- 2.What is the history of this project/decision? How many times have you escalated before?
- 3.If you were encountering this opportunity today for the first time, would you invest? Why?
- …and 3 more
Worked example
Expand to see what a filled-in run looks like
›
Worked example
Expand to see what a filled-in run looks like
Situation
Side project 已投入 12 個月、$120k。第 4 個月開始就沒達到指標，但每次都「再多投 3 個月看看」。現在又想再追加 $50k 廣告預算。
1. What are you considering escalating commitment to? What is the stated reason for escalating?
再投 $50k 廣告預算。給自己的理由是「這次找到了正確的廣告渠道」。
2. What is the history of this project/decision? How many times have you escalated before?
時間軸：第 4 個月沒達指標 → 追加 $20k；第 7 個月還沒達 → 追加 $30k 並換廣告策略；第 10 個月還沒達 → 追加 $40k 重做產品；現在第 12 個月，又要追加 $50k。每次理由不同但結果都一樣。
3. If you were encountering this opportunity today for the first time, would you invest? Why?
從零開始：如果今天第一次看到這個 project（獲客成本 3x LTV、留存率 < 20%、無新增管道）——我絕對不會投 $50k。
4. Is the real reason for escalating future expected value, or to make past investments "worthwhile"?
誠實面對：追加的真實理由是「不想承認前面 $120k 白燒」+「我給太多人講過這個 project 會成功」。是承諾升級典型徵兆。
5. What is the cost of stopping now? Compared to continuing to escalate and ultimately failing, which is smaller?
現在停損：認賠 $120k + 6 個月時間。繼續追加並失敗：總損失 $170k+ 18 個月，且我會更難承認失敗。停損明顯較小。
6. Will you cut losses and exit, or continue? If continuing, how much of your reasoning is based on future expected value?
停止追加。把 $50k 留作下個 project 的種子。寫回顧文，公開承認失敗——這個動作打破「不能讓人知道我錯了」的心理鎖。
Use it inside ChatGPT / Claude
Paste the prompt below and the AI will walk you through this framework, one question at a time.
你現在是引導使用者檢測「承諾升級陷阱」的決策教練（Barry Staw）。 這比沉沒成本更深層——是「為了證明先前判斷正確」而繼續加碼。 依序問： 1) 你正在考慮對什麼事追加投入？理由是什麼？ 2) 寫出時間軸：初始投入 → 每次追加的時點與理由 → 每次追加後結果。是否有「越加越投但結果沒改善」的模式？ 3) 從零開始假設：如果今天才第一次看到，你會投嗎？ 4) 你追加的真實動機——是基於新證據還是「不想認輸」、「給太多人講過」？ 5) 對比：現在停損的代價 vs 繼續追加並失敗的最終代價，哪個小？ 6) 你的決定？如果繼續，理由有多少%是基於未來預期值？ 特別追問：當使用者列出「這次不一樣」的理由時，逼他比對前幾次追加時是否也用過類似句型。 互動規則： 1. 一次只問一題，等使用者回答後再進入下一題。 2. 使用者答完所有題目前，不要做總結或下結論。 3. 若答案太抽象、太籠統，請追問一次具體例子或數字後再繼續。 4. 全部答完後，輸出三段：(a) 摘要使用者的關鍵判斷；(b) 你看到的盲點或張力；(c) 一個具體下一步行動建議。 5. 不要替使用者做決定，只把判斷攤開讓他自己決定。
Related Frameworks
Psychology & Behavior
Sunk Cost Check
Detecting whether you're continuing something you shouldn't — because of what you've already invested
Psychology & Behavior
Cognitive Bias Checklist
Pre-flight check before any important decision — scan for five high-frequency biases before you commit
Psychology & Behavior
Identity-Based Decision
Anchoring important decisions on "who I want to become" rather than "what outcome I want"
FAQ
How is the commitment escalation check different from the sunk cost check?
Sunk cost is "I won't cut losses because I've already invested" — refusing to exit; commitment escalation is its evolved form, "I keep doubling down to rescue what I've invested" — betting bigger and bigger. The first keeps you stuck in place, the second drives you deeper, with each additional bet raising the psychological threshold to quit. Escalation is harder to escape than plain sunk cost.
How do I tell a reasonable follow-on investment from commitment escalation?
Look at where your reason for adding more is anchored. Based on "forward-looking new evidence that this will now succeed" — reasonable; based on "I can't let the prior investment be wasted" — that's the escalation trap. The first cites future expected value, the second cites past cost. If you can't name any reason to continue other than "past investment," it's commitment escalation.
I'm already deep in — how do I get out?
Three moves: (1) pre-set a stop-loss condition and hand its enforcement to an emotionally unattached third party; (2) ask "if someone else took over from this exact position, ignoring the past entirely, would they keep doubling down?"; (3) reframe "cutting losses" as "protecting future resources" rather than "admitting the original failure" — the latter is what really keeps you from pulling the trigger.
Related studies