Consistency, not waste aversion, explains apparent sunk‐cost effects in politics
2026-08-08
Do sunk costs shape how voters judge political leaders, or do reputational signals carried by current choices dominate? Across three preregistered experiments (total N = 1462) using vignettes about a national rail project, we orthogonally manipulated sunk costs (high vs. absent), leaders' decisions (continue vs. abandon), campaign commitments (pro, anti, none), and reminders of prior voting behavior. In Experiment 1 ( N = 346), Bayesian ANOVA showed that evaluations (vote likelihood, perceived honesty, competence) were reliably higher when leaders continued rather than abandoned a project, with no main effect of sunk costs and no interaction. Experiment 2 ( N = 719) replicated the null sunk‐cost effect and further found no effect of campaign commitments once the leader's current decision was known. Experiment 3 ( N = 397) used a structural equation model to test mediation: perceived commitment—but not perceived sunk costs—robustly predicted evaluations, and abandonment sharply reduced perceived commitment; prior‐vote cues were weak and did not mediate effects. Together, the studies indicate that people take continuation to signal commitment and view it positively, whereas abandonment stopping signals a breach of commitment and is penalized. Apparent sunk‐cost sensitivity in politics may often reflect a premium on consistency rather than waste aversion. We discuss implications for designing “face‐saving” off‐ramps and reframing evidence‐based reversals as fidelity to higher order commitments.