How to Make Career Decisions When Everything Feels Risky

Checked against primary sources by the Editorial Team. Every figure in this article was traced to the study it came from, including the ones that contradict what we previously published. How we review.

This article contains affiliate links. If you buy something through one of them, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. It never changes what we recommend or what we say about it. Advertiser Disclosure.

Career choices feel risky when you are weighing a known job against an unknown one. Three well studied patterns help explain why staying put can feel safer than it is. This article walks through what the original authors found, what they did not claim, and one practical way to act on it.

Losses weigh more than gains

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman built cumulative prospect theory on two principles, which they call diminishing sensitivity and loss aversion. Loss aversion means a loss tends to hurt more than an equal gain pleases. The authors also report a characteristic pattern in choices: people lean toward caution when a gain is likely and toward risk taking when a loss is likely.

For a career decision, that pattern matters. Leaving a stable job puts a visible loss on the table: the salary, the title, the colleagues. The gain from a new path is harder to picture. Loss aversion offers one explanation for why the loss can dominate your thinking.

A note on a figure we previously published. An earlier version of this article said people feel losses "roughly twice as strongly" as gains and cited the 1979 paper. We could not read that paper or a source for the ratio, so we have removed the number. The 1992 abstract we did read supports the principle, not a specific multiple.

Trap one: the money and time you already spent

Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer studied what they call the sunk cost effect: a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made. In their theater subscription field study, patrons who paid more for season tickets attended more plays over six months. They also found that people who had already invested money inflated their projections of success compared with people who had not.

The authors note that prospect theory describes this pattern of throwing good money after bad. They also report that taking economics courses did not reduce the tendency.

Think of the degree you finished, the ten years in one industry, or the certification you earned. Those costs are gone whichever way you go. The Arkes and Blumer findings suggest those costs can still pull you toward staying, and can make your odds look better than they are.

Trap two: the pull of the familiar

William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser ran experiments and also examined actual choices, including faculty health plan and retirement program selections. They report that individuals disproportionately stick with the status quo. They discuss explanations from economics, psychology, and decision theory.

In practice, this means that doing nothing is a choice with its own pull, and it does not carry zero risk. A job you keep by default is still a decision about the next several years.

What we removed

The earlier version listed a separate "ambiguity trap," saying uncertainty triggers perceived danger and causes delay. It had no study behind it, and we could not source one, so we dropped it as a research claim. Uncertainty is still a reasonable thing to plan for, as the steps below show.

The earlier version also said research shows people regret inaction more than failed attempts, and attributed a regret question to Daniel Gilbert. We could not read the regret research, and the attribution did not check out against a source we opened. We have removed both. Treat any claim that avoidance is always the riskier path with caution; the studies we read do not say that.

Turning the findings into a decision

None of these studies tells you to quit or to stay. They describe how people tend to weigh risk, which gives you a way to check your own reasoning. Based on those findings, here is one way to act.

• Separate decisions you can undo from decisions you cannot. A side project or a conversation with a hiring manager costs little to reverse. Resigning without an offer costs more.
• List what you have already spent, then cross it off. The sunk cost findings suggest those items bias your forecast, so ask only what each path offers from today forward.
• Name the default. If you do nothing, what does the next year look like? The status quo findings suggest this option looks safer than it is.
• Pick a small test and a date. A few weeks of informational interviews or a short freelance project gives you information without a leap.
• Write your exit rule before you start. Decide what result would make you continue and what would make you stop. Duke describes this practice under names such as quitting contracts and kill criteria.

The rule matters because the research above describes biases that grow once you are already invested. A rule written before you begin is harder to bend later.

What this evidence cannot tell you

The studies describe how groups of people decide, mostly in experiments and a few field settings. They do not predict how your own career will go. They also do not show that the steps above produce better outcomes; that is why we rate the behavior Low. If money, health, or family obligations limit your options, a cautious choice can be sound. Talking with a mentor, a financial planner, or a career counselor can add information these studies cannot.