Reversible Decisions: Design “Return Tickets” Into Your Choices

The core idea

Many decisions can be tried, measured, and—if needed—undone. We often forget this because three well-documented biases push us to “stick it out”:

• Status quo bias: we prefer the current path even when switching would help (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988).

• Sunk cost fallacy: past investment makes us continue unwise projects (Arkes & Blumer, 1985).

• Loss aversion / endowment effect: giving something up feels worse than gaining something new feels good (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler, 1990).'

Recognizing these biases lets us right-size most choices as reversible.

One-way vs two-way doors

• One-way doors (rare): high impact, hard to reverse (e.g., certain medical procedures). Move slowly and get expert advice.

• Two-way doors (common): you can step through, assess, and step back (role changes, relocations, purchases). Decide faster and design a return path.
  (Heuristic popularized by Jeff Bezos’s “Type 1/Type 2 decisions,” 2015.)

How to design reversibility (science-backed tactics)

1. Time-box the decision
   Set a review date before the choice hardens. Pair it with an if–then plan (“If by day 30 I’m not using the car for errands, then I’ll sell it”). Implementation intentions reliably increase follow-through (Gollwitzer, 1999).

2. Run the smallest possible experiment
   Test the riskiest assumption with the least time and money: sublet before moving; contract before quitting; rent or borrow before buying. A brief pre-mortem—imagining the project has failed and listing reasons—improves risk detection (Klein, 2007).

3. Write the return path upfront (kill criteria)
   Decide in advance what metric triggers reversal (e.g., “If average meaningful work <10 hrs/week by week 6, revert to Plan B”). This counters escalation from sunk costs (Arkes & Blumer, 1985).

4. Keep margin and support
   Capacity to adapt—psychological flexibility—is linked to better mental health and behavior change (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Protect sleep, ask for help, and leave budget/time buffers to make switching feasible.

A practical 30-day template

• Goal: “Test living in City X.”

• Success metrics: “2 social meetups/week; commute ≤40 min; budget within €Y.”

• Cheap test: month-to-month sublet; keep current lease for overlap if possible.

• Review date: day 28.

• Kill criteria (return path): if ≥2 metrics fail, move back or try a second neighborhood.

• Support: buddy check-in weekly; savings buffer to cover overlap month.

Swap the scenario (new job, new routine, purchase) and keep the structure.

When not to treat a decision as reversible

• High, irreversible stakes (health, legal, safety).

• Decisions that affect others in ways they can’t easily reverse.

• Situations where returning is legally or financially impractical.

In these cases, slow down, get expert input, and stress-test assumptions before acting.

Quick checklist (use before saying “yes”)

• Is this really a one-way door—or am I inflating the risk?

• What’s the smallest test I can run this week?

• What are my kill criteria and exact return steps?

• Do I have enough time/money/energy buffer to switch back?

References

• Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

• Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.

• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1990). Endowment effect and loss aversion. Journal of Political Economy.

• Gollwitzer, P. (1999). Implementation intentions (if–then plans) and goal achievement. American Psychologist.

• Klein, G. (2007). The pre-mortem technique. Harvard Business Review.

• Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility and well-being. Clinical Psychology Review.

• Bezos, J. (2015). Type 1/Type 2 decisions. Amazon Shareholder Letter.

#DecisionMaking #Optionality #BehavioralScience #Psychology #PersonalGrowth #Resilience #CourseCorrect #Clarity