A long time ago I became interested in the intersection of economics and psychology. Part of that overlap falls under the domain of Behavioral Economics, a field that studies the different ways in which consumers and other economic agents make biased or “irrational” decisions. You may have read about Behavioral Economics recently: the 2017 Nobel Prize of Economics was awarded to economist Richard Thaler for his contributions to the field. Fifteen year earlier, in 2002, the same prize was won by a psychologist, Daniel Kahneman. He is one of the founders of Behavioral Economics, through the development of Prospect Theory. In this article I explain how Prospect Theory can help us understand part of why ending a relationship can be so difficult.
Prospect Theory suggests a few things about how people make decisions in uncertain situations:
After reflecting on the relationship conundrums of some of my patients, I started thinking about how Prospect Theory could be helpful to understand why it is sometimes difficult to end a relationship that is making us unhappy, or that we know is not good for us.
Ending a relationship can be perceived as risky or uncertain, particularly when it has been going on for a long time. According to the principle of loss aversion, deciding to end a relationship would be difficult because the fear of perceived losses (e.g., changing the status quo, emotional or financial difficulties, esteem from others) can outweigh the potential gains of ending a relationship (e.g., peace of mind, empowerment, independence).
In other words, people would be more willing to take their chances and stay in a relationship that is not working -in order to avoid any perceived losses-, than to run the risk of ending it, even if they can see how that would be beneficial. Fear becomes more powerful than possibility.
The endowment effect suggests that the value we place in our relationships may depend more on how much we feel we have invested in it (emotionally, time-wise, financially, etc), than on the qualities of the relationship itself (e.g., are our needs met? do we feel nurtured and cared for?). This is a phenomenon economists call the “sunk cost fallacy,” whereby people overemphasize the weight of their previous decisions – think of a company that keeps pouring money into an idea that is clearly not working, just because they already invested a lot in it. The investment already made is a “sunk cost” and could not be recovered anyway.
When we hear people talking about their difficulties ending a relationship with arguments like “we have gone through so much together” or “we have been together for so long“, we might be witnessing the endowment effect and sunk cost fallacy in action. This can be particularly true in relationships where shared experiences and meaning have not been able to create and sustain emotional closeness and vulnerability.
Whatever constitutes a gain or a loss, and our willingness to take our chances in the face of uncertainty, is a function of our reference point. When it comes to relationships, I understand this point to be defined by whether we feel we are in a place of scarcity or abundance.
In the experiment described above, the group who did not keep the mug was, in a way, in a place of scarcity; as a result, they did not value the mug that highly. In relationships, being in a place of scarcity might be experienced as having doubts about our own self-worth, or not believing that we could find someone else. In this case, it is harder to value the potential benefits of ending an unhealthy relationship, so the decision becomes more difficult. Moreover, people in this situation sometimes appear to be fighting to keep their relationships, scrambling for reasons to stay in it, even if it is dissatisfying, unhealthy or destructive.
On the other hand, being in a place of abundance might imply embracing acceptance and gratitude, and being aware of our doubts but secure in our sense of worth. Even if a relationship is going through difficult times and the end is imminent, the fear of potential losses may have a lower impact relative to the potential “gains” of moving on. This doesn’t make the decision easy by any means, but people in this situation might appreciate that there can be growth beyond their current relationship, and understand that if a relationship ends, it does not mean that it failed.
The phenomena described by Prospect Theory are neither good nor bad, they just are. The question is not how to eliminate these biases, but what can we do to deal with them. Three things come to mind:
Doing these things can be daunting, in particular when we are dealing with the stress of a relationship that might not be working. Many times we are too close to see them with clarity. The good news is that it is ok to be unclear; this is a process and we don’t need to go through it alone.
Prospect Theory is mostly based on understanding cognitive biases. The role of emotions and affect is not emphasized, and treated mostly as a source of distortion. However, when it comes to interpersonal or romantic relationships, conscious and unconscious affect is intertwined with our thoughts (rational or not) and behaviors. Prospect Theory alone cannot capture the depth of human emotions, the intricacies of interpersonal relationships, and the complexity of love, but it can provide a lens to understand the challenges they might create.
A version of this article was originally published at www.santiagodelboy.com