What Movie Tickets Can Teach Us About Better Decision-Making

Recently, I took my kids to the movies. For months, the trailers had tantalized us with nuggets of plot twists and action. On opening day, cold drinks in hand, we inched our way to the seats in a crowded theater. We nestled into our luxe reclining chairs, the scent of buttery popcorn evoking within us a sense of anticipation and nostalgia. But the promise of an epic film fell flat, and within half an hour, it became painfully clear that this movie would be a flop.

We leaned over one another, whispering the unthinkable question. Should we leave? I wanted to walk out, but I’d already paid for the tickets, nice ones at that. Would you have left? If you’d answered, no, you’re not alone. But why? The answer lies in a relatively nascent field of economics called behavioral economics which predicts with surprising accuracy how we behave when faced with financial decision making. The field gained traction in the 1970s with key work published by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, and in the 1980s with Richard Thaler’s influential papers on the convergence of economics and psychology.

To understand the pivotal role behavioral economics plays in our lives and how it can impact our financial well-being, I’d like to introduce you to someone very important. His name is homo economicus. He is one hundred percent rational, entirely self-interested, fully knowledgeable, never changes his mind, and always avoids unnecessary work. In other words, he’s entirely unhuman, yet nearly all classic economic models used to predict human behavior are based on him. In reality, he’s a terrible predictor of human behavior.

Behavioral economics challenges notions based on homo economicus. Every day, in every business, you face financial choices. If you can understand how humans are wired to make these types of decisions, you can unlock incredible potential in your businesses and practices.

#1 Survivorship Bias: Learning from What’s Missing

During World War II, as the U.S. military were pounding German and Japanese targets from the air, U.S. military commanders realized that they were losing nearly fifty percent of bombers and air crews. This rate was unsustainable. They had to find a way to armor their planes to reduce damage and thereby complete loss. The challenge was that armor added too much weight to the planes to fly. Thus, the armor had to be added in strategic locations of the plane’s body. In order to determine where exactly the armor should be added the U.S. military conducted a study on where returning aircrafts had the most bullet holes. The obvious solution seemed to be reinforcing those areas.

Then mathematician Abraham Wald, who had been recruited to solve this problem, challenged that solution with a critical insight: the planes they studied had survived despite the damage. The ones that didn’t come back—the ones at the bottom of the ocean—had taken hits in other, more critical spots that weren’t visible in the data.

This is survivorship bias. It focuses on the visible successes while ignoring the invisible failures. We see it everywhere:

• Believing appliances were “better made” in the past, when in reality only the durable ones survived.

• Admiring the strength of historic buildings while forgetting the many that collapsed or decayed.

• Thinking every startup could be the next big success, while ignoring that 90% fail.

In practice, survivorship bias can cause us to miss what truly matters. The patients who return and share feedback are the “survivors,” while those who never come back may hold the more important lessons.

How do we overcome survivorship bias?

In the world of dentistry once such example is in the way studies are assessed. They too may be susceptible to survivorship bias.

#2 Loss Aversion: Why Loss Hurts More Than Gain

Imagine I offer you a choice: flip a coin for the chance to win $100 or take $50 guaranteed. Most people take the guaranteed $50. But flip the scenario—now you could lose $100 on heads or lose $50 for certain—and most people suddenly gamble, unwilling to accept a definite loss.

This is loss aversion. The tendency to feel the pain of loss far more strongly than the pleasure of gain. Research shows loss hurts about two and a half times more than an equivalent gain feels good.

The reaction isn’t just psychological, it’s physiological. Brain imaging studies reveal that loss activates the amygdala, the part of the brain that drives fight-or-flight responses, flooding us with stress hormones. Great for escaping danger, not so great for financial decisions.

Loss aversion shapes everyday choices:

• Investors often sell winning stocks while clinging to losing ones.

• Patients may choose a root canal over an implant, even when the implant is the better long-term option, simply because losing a natural tooth feels too painful.

• Practices delay investing in technology or cling to unprofitable insurance plans because cutting ties feels like a loss.

The key is to step back, zoom out and evaluate choices in the long term—free of emotional bias.

#3 The Sunk Cost Fallacy: Don’t Let the Past Sink the Future

Let’s return to the bad movie. Why was it so hard to walk out? The answer is in the sunk cost fallacy: the idea that once we’ve invested money, time or effort, we feel compelled to keep investing, even when it no longer serves us.

Sunk costs are unrecoverable costs. Some examples include rent, utilities, and past advertising. (once spent, it’s gone). Including the past spending when making future decisions is like keeping a heavy anchor attached to a boat simply because you once needed it.

Businesses fall into this trap all the time:

• Renovating offices or holding onto leases that no longer make financial sense.

• Continuing marketing campaigns that no longer work.

• Staying in vendor contracts or insurance agreements out of habit rather than strategy.

Recognizing sunk costs for what they are frees us to make clearer, forward-looking decisions.

Smarter Choices for Dentistry

So why does this matter for dentistry? Because every day in practice, financial decisions aren’t just about numbers, they’re about human behavior.

• Survivorship bias reminds us that the loudest feedback isn’t the whole story. The real insights may come from the patients who quietly left and never returned.

  
  

• Loss aversion explains why patients sometimes resist the treatment you know is best. Losing a tooth, even when it’s the right clinical decision, triggers stronger emotions than gaining an implant. It also explains why practices hold onto outdated systems, low-paying insurance contracts, or non-profitable procedures, because letting go feels like a loss.

  
  

• The sunk cost fallacy plays out when dentists keep investing in failing strategies or facilities simply because they’ve already spent money on them. Patients do the same thing when they keep “trying to save” a tooth that’s long past saving.

Behavioral economics shows us that gut instinct isn’t always right. While our brains evolved to enable our survival, the very instincts we possess in order to save and protect ourselves may be thwarting our efforts to financially prosper. But if we can recognize these biases in ourselves and our patients, we can make clearer decisions, deliver better care and build healthier practices. Sometimes, the smartest move isn’t to double down on the ticket you’ve already bought—it’s to take your kids to the beach instead, and that’s just what I did. I took my kids out of the theater and enjoyed a day of powdery sand and warm sun.