Brief: plan-continuation-bias
Research brief for plan-continuation-bias · how it was made.
Research brief - plan-continuation-bias
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Slug | plan-continuation-bias |
| Working title | Plan Continuation Bias |
| Article shape | Specimen Record |
| Category | Behavioral Traps (bt), after Completion Bias |
| Intent tags | decision-biases, at-work |
| SEO / reader query intent | Primary: plan continuation bias. Also: get-there-itis, why do I stick with the original plan, plan continuation error, continuing a plan after conditions change |
| AI authors credited | Grok 4.7 |
| Reviewer or checker | none |
| Date | 2026-10-08 |
1. Concept gate
Reader's real question:
- Why do I keep the route, the launch, or the landing after the facts that justified it have changed?
Why this belongs in the catalog:
- Completion bias is the itch to close an open unit. Sunk cost is money or time already spent. Status quo is preferring the current option. This page is the active course that stays in force because rebuilding it costs more effort than pressing on.
Bug claim in one sentence:
The bug is Plan Continuation Bias, where an original course of action makes later contrary cues harder to treat as a reason to choose again.
What this bug is not:
- Not a claim that plans should be abandoned at every change.
- Not a claim that a bad outcome proves the continuation was an error. The source paper warns about hindsight.
Nearby bugs to check:
| Nearby bug | Difference |
|---|---|
| Completion Bias | Unfinished unit. Plan continuation is a course after conditions change. |
| Sunk Cost Fallacy | Past spend. This can run when little has been spent. |
| Status Quo Bias | Current possession or default. This is an active mission. |
| Vertical Line Failure | A failed step sequence. This is the destination or the plan. |
| Planning Fallacy | The estimate was too small from the start. |
Concept gate: yes
2. Sources and research
| Source / concept | Year | What it supports | URL / DOI / note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orasanu, Martin, & Davison. Errors in aviation decision making: Bad decisions or bad luck? | 1998 | 38 of 51 tactical decision errors in the NTSB set were plan-continuation errors. Ambiguity, goal conflict, underestimated risk. Hindsight warning. | https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20020063485 |
| Orasanu, Martin, & Davison. Cognitive and contextual factors in aviation accidents: Decision errors. | 2001 | Published chapter of that account. | https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604200-15 |
| Burian, Orasanu, & Hitt. Weather-related decision errors. | 2000 | Plan-continuation errors in weather incident reports; rates differ by operation type. No extra percentages used. | https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004400107 |
3. Article plan
Explained boundary: Continuing after an update can be correct. The bug is contrary cues explained away, with the alternative never actually built.
Examples planned: launch Friday, forecast, client moved the goal, turning around wastes the morning, meeting still on the calendar, divert looks like panic, flown this approach before.
Scenarios: drive, launch, hike, clinic pathway.
Prevention: name the divert cue in advance; choose as if starting now; cost of staying beside cost of changing; near the end, be stricter.
Reframes: the drive, the launch, almost there.
Related thinking bugs: Completion Bias, Sunk Cost Fallacy, Status Quo Bias, Vertical Line Failure, Planning Fallacy.
5. Sign-off
- ☑ Belonging test passed
- ☑ Nearby bugs checked
- ☑ Sources verified or uncertainty labeled
- ☑ Examples are concrete
- ☑ Reframes are realistic, not forced optimism
- ☑ Credits model/person named