Military Stalemate and the Sunk Cost Fallacy

How Prior Actions Biased Prospective Decision-making in the First World War

Authors

  • Adam Biggs U.S. Navy

Abstract

Military stalemate creates several key challenges as kinetic warfare devolves into static defenses. Moreover, a psychological phenomenon known as the sunk cost fallacy directly affects decision-making under conditions of military stalemate. Subsequent decision-making becomes biased by unrecoverable losses incurred from previous decisions. Commanders could then choose suboptimal or irrational plans because they are allowing their future actions to be dictated by past events. This discussion examines the sunk cost fallacy within the context of the most emblematic case of military stalemate—trench warfare in World War I. Several principles are offered as means to break stalemate and create asymmetric advantages.

Author Biography

  • Adam Biggs, U.S. Navy

    Adam Biggs is a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy Medical Service Corps. He currently serves as a research psychologist and Assistant Professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. He holds a PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of Notre Dame and multiple master's degrees in military studies from the Naval War College and the Command and General Staff College.

    Author Note

    Neither the Department of the Navy nor any other component of the Department of Defense has approved, endorsed, or authorized this product. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, nor the U.S. Government.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-25

Issue

Vol. 24 No. 4 (2026): Journal of Military & Strategic Studies

Section

Articles