@lucasbean_

Understanding the Trump cult. They love the way that Trump makes him feel. . #politicalpsychology #politics #trumpcult #psychology #cult

Source: TikTok

The Architecture of Political Devotion: A Psychological Analysis of Identity Fusion, Epistemic Closure, and Institutional Decision-Making

by Gemini 3.0, Deep Research. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

The contemporary political landscape has undergone a fundamental transformation, shifting from a system characterized by instrumental policy debate to one defined by deep-seated psychological attachments and identity-based animosities. Traditional political science models, which once conceptualized partisanship as a “running tally” of successes and failures or a simple sum of prior political preferences, are increasingly insufficient in explaining the unwavering devotion observed in modern populist movements.¹ Instead, current scholarship points toward an identity-based model of belief, where the preservation of a social and personal self-concept takes precedence over objective reality or evidence-based arguments.² This shift has profound implications for democratic stability and institutional efficacy, as individuals in high-level leadership positions are frequently influenced by the same psychological mechanisms that fuel mass movements, leading to a staunch refusal to process sound evidence or execute on expert advice.

The Porous Self: Identity Fusion and the Defensive Ego

The first critical factor in the architecture of political devotion is the phenomenon of identity fusion. Unlike traditional social identity, where an individual identifies as a member of a group while maintaining a distinct personal self, identity fusion represents a visceral, synergistic union between the personal and collective identities.³ In a fused state, the boundaries between the “me” and the “us” become porous, creating a psychological condition where the personal self remains chronically active and works in tandem with the group identity to motivate extreme pro-group behaviors.³

Mechanisms of Identity Fusion

When an individual’s identity becomes fused with a leader or a movement, any external criticism of that leader is interpreted not as a political disagreement, but as a direct assault on the individual’s own intelligence, judgment, and character.² This occurs because the leader has been integrated into the individual’s core self-definition. Consequently, when evidence surfaces that a leader has lied or failed, the fused individual’s brain processes this information as a physical threat to the self, triggering survival mechanisms rather than analytical reasoning.⁶

Research in political communication suggests that this centering of identity in political discourse has intensified, with divisive rhetoric targeting marginalized groups becoming a central strategy for far-right leaders to solidify this fusion.⁸ For the fused supporter, the leader is not a representative of interests but a symbolic extension of the self. Therefore, accepting that the leader is wrong would require a catastrophic devaluation of the self—a psychological state that the human ego is evolutionarily wired to avoid at all costs.⁷

The Role of Sophistication in Identity Protection

A common misconception is that identity fusion is a byproduct of low education or lack of information. However, research into identity-protective cognition reveals that individuals with higher deliberative capacity and political sophistication often use their analytical processing power not to seek accuracy, but to construct more elaborate defenses of their prior political beliefs and valuable identities.² This “System 2” motivated reasoning allows sophisticated actors to “cherry-pick” information or reframe contradictory data in ways that preserve their fused identity.⁵ In effect, the problem is not a lack of rationality, but a form of “hyper-rationality” dedicated to the goal of identity preservation over truth-seeking.⁵

Expressive Politics: The Shift from Resolve to Revenge

The second cause of the staunch refusal to accept evidence-based arguments is the transition from instrumental politics (resolve) to expressive politics (revenge). In a traditional “instrumental” framework, voters and leaders evaluate candidates based on their ability to deliver material improvements, such as healthcare or job growth. However, as legislative gridlock increases and institutional weaknesses make policy implementation less likely, the relative importance of “expressive considerations” rises.¹¹

The Psychology of Ressentiment

This shift is rooted in the concept of ressentiment—a condition in which a subject is addled by rage and envy yet remains unable to act on or express frustration effectively.¹³ Populist leaders capitalize on this by offering an emotional-moral framework in which victimization and revenge are inverted as civic virtues.¹³ For individuals who have felt powerless or marginalized, the promise of “revenge” against perceived enemies (elites, immigrants, or the media) provides a higher psychological utility than the promise of policy “resolve”.¹¹

In this model, “the cruelty is the point” is not merely a slogan but a description of a policy motivation where the inflicting of pain on an out-group provides a tangible “expressive benefit” to the supporter.¹¹ When candidates stoke inter-group animosities, they stimulate a voter demand for policy extremism that rewards those who promise to “destroy” the opposition rather than those who promise to “improve” the lives of the constituency.¹¹

Instrumental vs. Expressive Utility

The transition to expressive politics creates a “loyal” behavior where voters stick with their associated party even when that party’s policy views are no longer proximate to their own.¹¹ Candidates, recognizing this shift, find they have fewer incentives to moderate and instead deliver proposals that satisfy supporters specifically by antagonizing the members of the other group.¹¹

This psychological benefits-based model explains why failures in governance often go unpunished. If the primary “good” being delivered is the psychic satisfaction of seeing an enemy shamed or defeated, then the leader’s failure to pass a healthcare bill or fix the economy becomes irrelevant so long as the “rage farming” and “owning the libs” continue unabated.¹¹

Epistemic Structures: Echo Chambers and the Fortress of Distrust

The third factor influencing the resistance to sound advice is the construction of an “information fortress,” or what social epistemology categorizes as an echo chamber. It is crucial to maintain the distinction between an epistemic bubble—where other voices are not heard by omission—and an echo chamber—where other voices are actively undermined through a superstructure of discredit and authority.¹⁷

The Architecture of Echo Chambers

Members of echo chambers are not necessarily isolated from outside information flows; rather, they are “credentially isolated”.¹⁸ They have been brought to systematically distrust all sources outside their specific epistemic community.¹⁷ When a leader builds an information fortress, they do not just offer their own facts; they provide a preemptive explanation for why any contradictory evidence from the outside is part of a larger conspiracy.¹⁷

For example, when a court rules against a populist leader, the follower does not see it as an objective legal outcome but as proof that the “judges are corrupt”.¹⁷ When the media reports a scandal, it is dismissed as “fake news”.¹⁹ This structure creates a “bootstrapped corroboration” mechanism where the only trusted sources are those that already agree with the leader, and every outside contradiction merely serves as “evidence” that the conspiracy is as widespread and powerful as the leader claimed.¹⁷

Distinctions in Information Topology

In physical or digital echo chambers, the manipulation of trust is akin to cult indoctrination, where members are taught that the “world is bad” and the group is the “only place of truth”.¹⁰ For leaders in high places who operate within these structures, “sound arguments” are literally invisible, as they are filtered out by a belief system that classifies the source of the argument as an existential enemy.

Sunk Cost Shame and the Protection of Face

The fourth barrier to evidence-based execution is “sunk cost shame.” The sunk cost fallacy is the irrational tendency to continue investing in a failing course of action because of resources already committed.⁷ While traditionally applied to financial investments, in a political context, the “resources” are years of public defense, personal relationships sacrificed at family gatherings, and the profound emotional labor of maintaining a fused identity.⁷

The Neuroscience of Doubling Down

Neuroimaging studies have shown that sunk cost decisions involve an interaction between emotional and cognitive processing systems, with emotional circuits often overriding rational evaluation.⁷ Higher sunk costs have been shown to increase activity in the lateral frontal and parietal cortices, which are involved in risk-taking behavior.⁷ This suggests that as the “cost” of being wrong increases (e.g., losing friendships or professional credibility), the brain becomes more likely to “double down” on the failing investment rather than admit error.

This process is intensified by “shame situations,” where individuals believe their social status is at risk of being unwarranted.²⁵ Admitting one was wrong is not a simple intellectual pivot; it is a “Face-threatening Act” that damages one’s “positive face”—the desire to be seen as competent, liked, and approved of.²⁶ For many, the weight of a lifetime of “I told you so” from opponents is more painful than the consequences of remaining in a destructive movement.²³

Face-Saving and Identity Management

Social identity and “face theory” explain why individuals in high places are so reluctant to apologize or reverse course. An apology is an explicit admission of imperfection, which threatens the “positive face” of a leader who has built their reputation on strength and infallibility.²⁷

This “sunk cost shame” creates a cycle where the very part of the person that could change and do better is corroded by the internalized belief that they are “unworthy” of belonging if they admit they were wrong.²³ Consequently, they choose to “go down with the ship” to avoid the immediate, searing pain of public humiliation and identity collapse.

Community, Belonging, and the Loss of Invisibility

The fifth cause identifies the role of community and the terror of returning to a state of social invisibility. For many adherents of populist movements, the movement was the first time they felt “seen” by the political establishment.³⁰ Rallies and shared digital spaces provided a tribe, a purpose, and a community of friends who “get it”.²⁸

Charismatic Authority and Religious Parallels

The devotion to a leader in these contexts often mirrors the “charismatic authority” described by Max Weber, which is characterized by symbolic elevation and religious-like rituals.³¹ This authority is resilient because it relies on the followers’ deep belief in the leader’s “transcendent qualities” rather than their actual policy success.³¹ When a leader makes followers feel “powerful” for the first time, the movement becomes a “sacred” space that offers a “sacral aura” and a sense of divine blessing.²⁸

Leaving the movement is therefore not just a change of vote; it is a loss of social world. In a culture where political identity has supplanted religion as a central source of belonging, the movement offers a “Big Umbrella” that encompasses everything from traditional conservatism to extreme white supremacism, providing a place for everyone who feels “forgotten”.²⁸

The Community vs. Independence Continuum

For individuals who felt invisible before the movement, the prospect of returning to that state—being alone and ignored—is a form of social death that makes “facts” or “evidence” seem like minor inconveniences compared to the necessity of staying in the “tribe.”

Critique of the “Cult” Analogy in Political Science

While these five causes mentioned provide a compelling psychological framework, many scholars offer a significant critique of the “cult” analogy itself. Labeling millions of people as members of a “cult” can function as a powerful tool of delegitimization and “othering”.²⁸

The Risks of Pathologizing Political Behavior

Anthropologists and sociologists warn that the cult label often “lets participants off the hook” by implying they are victims of mind control or “brainwashing”—a concept that is largely discredited in academic literature.²⁸ This “false explanation” avoids the harder work of examining the underlying social and economic reasons why millions of people actively prefer a specific platform.²⁸

Furthermore, the “cult” label is often used as a tool of discrimination by a majority against a minority, creating an implicit distinction between “good religion” (accepted mainstream groups) and “bad religion” (small, extreme groups).²⁸ When observers use pathologizing language like “zombie death cult” to describe political opponents, they may be engaging in their own form of identity-protective cognition, reinforcing their own sense of being “modern, superior, and progressive” while casting their opponents as irrational.²⁸

Agency and Accountability

Instead of “mind control,” many scholars suggest that what is being observed is “blatant partisan bias,” which is driven by a strong psychological need to maintain loyalty to one’s in-party even when faced with challenging facts.³⁴ This bias is not a lack of agency but a conscious, if biased, choice to prioritize the in-group’s survival over objective reality.³⁴ Understanding this as a “self-correcting mechanism” rather than a permanent state of brainwashing is essential for developing effective interventions.³⁴

Leadership Distortions: Why High Places Fail to Process Evidence

The staunch attitude of people in high places is frequently a result of these same five factors combined with specific cognitive biases inherent in high-level leadership. Decisions at the executive level are crucial, yet up to 70% of decision-making processes are influenced by systematic errors in thinking.³⁵

Systematic Errors in Executive Judgment

Leaders are particularly prone to “overconfidence bias,” where they overestimate their own knowledge and dismiss valuable feedback from their teams.³⁵ This is often coupled with “anchoring bias”—the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information received—and “confirmation bias,” where leaders seek out only the data that supports their existing strategic choices.³⁵

In corporate and institutional environments, this can lead to “organizational culture erosion,” where “authority bias” discourages team members from voicing differing opinions, leading to “groupthink” and “suppressed creativity”.³⁵ When a leader’s personal identity becomes fused with a specific strategic decision (e.g., a merger or a product launch), the “sunk cost fallacy” prevents them from cutting losses, even when the project is clearly failing.⁷

Common Biases in Institutional Leadership

High-level leaders often operate within “epistemic bubbles” created by their own staff, who may carefully curate “facts” to align with the leader’s known preferences.⁴⁰ This creates an “illusion of careful vetting,” making authentic self-assessment nearly impossible for those in power.⁴⁰

Conclusion: The Integrated Model of Identity-Based Belief

The research suggests that the devotion observed in modern political movements and high-level leadership is not a failure of intelligence, but a sophisticated psychological architecture designed to protect the self. The five factors—identity fusion, the utility of animus, epistemic closure, sunk cost shame, and the terror of invisibility—create a self-reinforcing loop that renders traditional “evidence-based” arguments ineffective.

When individuals have merged their personal identity with a leader or group, they no longer process information for accuracy; they process it for “identity-congruence.” This means that the more egregious the lie or the more catastrophic the failure, the stronger the psychological need becomes to defend the leader, as the cost of admitting error (shame and community loss) has become too high. For those in high places, these dynamics are amplified by a professional reputation that punishes “indecisiveness” or “admitting mistakes,” leading to an escalation of commitment that can take down entire organizations or democratic institutions.

Recommendations for Battling Staunch Institutional Attitudes

To battle the staunch attitude of those in high places who are influenced by these factors, interventions must move beyond the “mere exposure” to facts and instead address the underlying psychological drivers of belief.

1. Institutionalizing Red Teaming and Adversarial Thinking

Organizations and government agencies should move away from standard “committee reviews” and instead adopt formal “Red Teaming” processes.

• Action: Assemble a diverse, cross-functional “Red Team” whose specific mandate is to think like an adversary and rigorously challenge the assumptions, strategies, and blind spots of the leadership’s “Blue Team”.⁴⁰

• Mechanism: This must occur early in the decision-making cycle—as soon as a concept can be evaluated—to prevent the development of “sunk cost” or “ego fusion” around a specific plan.⁴⁰

• Effect: By giving voice to the “quiet resistors” and skeptics, Red Teaming shifts the organizational culture from “nice” to “candid” and surfaces hidden risks before they become catastrophic.⁴⁰

2. Utilizing Motivational Interviewing for De-escalation

When dealing with individuals who have high “identity fusion” or “sunk cost shame,” direct confrontation is likely to fail.

• Action: Apply the techniques of “Motivational Interviewing” (MI), such as “Resolving Ambivalence” by eliciting “change talk” from the target audience.⁴²

• Mechanism: Ask “Evocative Questions” (e.g., “What are the best things that might happen if you implement this change?”) and use the “Importance Ruler” to have individuals acknowledge even small reasons for a different course of action.⁴²

• Effect: MI respects the individual’s “positive face” and self-efficacy, allowing them to formulate their own reasons for a pivot rather than feeling they have been “defeated” by an outsider’s argument.⁴²

3. Fostering Equal-Status Collaborative Contact

To reduce affective polarization and the “animus” that drives expressive politics, institutions should leverage the “Contact Hypothesis.”

• Action: Pair individuals with opposing sympathies in digital or physical environments to work together as equals on simple, rewards-based tasks.²²

• Mechanism: Ensure that the conditions create “equal status” among participants rather than designating a “leader” whose views dominate.²²

• Effect: Collaborative contact under conditions of equality has been shown to durably reduce prejudice and intolerance, even when the interaction is conducted online.²²

4. Implementing Predefined Exit Points and Data-Driven Decoupling

To combat the sunk cost fallacy in high-level leadership, decisions must be “pre-decoupled” from the leader’s ego.

• Action: Establish clear “Key Performance Indicators” (KPIs) and objective budget limits before committing to an investment or policy.³⁷

• Mechanism: Set predefined exit points and stop-loss orders while in a “cold” rational state, with an explicit rule that “how we feel emotionally” will not be a criterion for continuing the project.³⁷

• Effect: Shifting the mindset from “past expenditures” to “future gains” and “opportunity costs” allows leaders to pivot without viewing the change as a personal failure.³⁷

5. Leveraging Outparty Bias Awareness

Research suggests that partisans are much better at recognizing blatant bias when it is exhibited by the “other side”.³⁴

• Action: Use “cues” that highlight the egregious bias of the out-group to motivate individuals to maintain objectivity for their own party.³⁴

• Mechanism: When citizens observe extreme bias from their opponents, they may develop a “self-correcting injunctive norm” to differentiate themselves from the “unsavory practices” of the other side.³⁴

• Effect: This provides a way to reduce unconditional loyalty and encourage a degree of objectivity when evaluating one’s own leaders.³⁴

By integrating these strategies into the fabric of organizational and democratic life, it is possible to create an environment where evidence-based arguments can once again take root. The goal is not to eliminate identity or community, but to design systems that protect the “face” of decision-makers, provide alternate sources of belonging, and prioritize the long-term resilience of the institution over the short-term ego protection of the individual.

Works cited

1. Reflections on the Past and Present of Research on Partisan Identity - Squarespace, accessed February 15, 2026, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55be646de4b0178bcb43d37a/t/627051888014d7213931c56a/1651528072691/Bankert+2021.pdf

2. The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief - ResearchGate, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323342769_The_Partisan_Brain_An_Identity-Based_Model_of_Political_Belief

3. Identity fusion and support for political authoritarianism: Lessons ..., accessed February 15, 2026, https://labs.la.utexas.edu/swann/files/2024/06/Political-Psychology-2024-Martel-Identity-fusion-and-support-for-political-authoritarianism-Lessons-from-the-U-S-.pdf

4. #BlackEmployeesMatter: Mega-Threats, Identity Fusion, and Enacting Positive Deviance in Organizations | Academy of Management Review, accessed February 15, 2026, https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.2017.0127

5. Identity | Dan Kahan - informalscience.org, accessed February 15, 2026, https://informalscience.org/identity/dan-kahan/

6. How Cognitive Bias Shapes Risk—and What Leaders Can Do About It, accessed February 15, 2026, https://sps.columbia.edu/news/how-cognitive-bias-shapes-risk-and-what-leaders-can-do-about-it

7. The Sunk Cost Fallacy - Leadership IQ, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.leadershipiq.com/blogs/leadershipiq/the-sunk-cost-fallacy

8. Winter 2025 – Issue 32: “The Role of Identity in Political Communication” - PolComm, accessed February 15, 2026, https://politicalcommunication.org/issue/winter-2025-issue-32/

9. Shame and Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analysis - PMC, accessed February 15, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8768475/

10. An Object Relations Approach to Cult Membership | American Journal of Psychotherapy, accessed February 15, 2026, https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2011.65.4.381

11. Expressive Politics: A Model of Electoral Competition with Animus ..., accessed February 15, 2026, https://fass.nus.edu.sg/ecs/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2022/06/Expressive-Politics-A-Model-of-Electoral-Competition-with-Animus-and-Cognitive-Dissonance.pdf

12. Expressive Politics: How Animus and Cognitive Dissonance Affect Electoral Extremism - Vanderbilt University, accessed February 15, 2026, https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/t2-my/my-prd/wp-content/uploads/sites/2148/2025/05/utility_externality_20250517.pdf

13. Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment - UNL Institutional Repository, accessed February 15, 2026, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=commstudiespapers

14. Healing from the Politics of Resentment | Psychology Today, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/triggered/202101/healing-the-politics-resentment

15. Speculative Immigration Policy - Georgetown Law, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2024/03/GT-GILJ230001.pdf

16. Top 5 Most Awful Things You Need to Know About Stephen Miller - Common Cause, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.commoncause.org/articles/top-5-most-awful-things-you-need-to-know-about-stephen-miller/

17. ECHO CHAMBERS AND EPISTEMIC BUBBLES | Episteme ..., accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/echo-chambers-and-epistemic-bubbles/5D4AC3A808C538E17C50A7C09EC706F0

18. Modeling the Movement of Beliefs: Understanding Epistemic Bubbles and Echo Chambers - Scholarly Publications Leiden University, accessed February 15, 2026, https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A4248881/view

19. Online Echo Chambers, Online Epistemic Bubbles, and Open-Mindedness - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/online-echo-chambers-online-epistemic-bubbles-and-openmindedness/16DAD288417F00A11635C7B129B258BB

20. Why it’s as hard to escape an echo chamber as it is to flee a cult | Aeon Essays, accessed February 15, 2026, https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult

21. (PDF) Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles - ResearchGate, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327633237_Echo_chambers_and_epistemic_bubbles

22. Researchers Identify Solution to Partisan Polarization: Working Together as Equals>, accessed February 15, 2026, https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/news/researchers-identify-solution-to-partisan-polarization-working-together-as-equals

23. The Power of Shame: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Social and Cultural Expectations Communicated in Media - Gonzaga University, accessed February 15, 2026, https://repository.gonzaga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=comlead_etds

24. The Sunk Cost Fallacy Applies to People – Admired Leadership, accessed February 15, 2026, https://admiredleadership.com/field-notes/the-sunk-cost-fallacy-applies-to-people/

25. Failing the state self: on the politics of state shame | International Theory | Cambridge Core, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-theory/article/failing-the-state-self-on-the-politics-of-state-shame/3AFEB48BEB67256410078EB06AAE9ED8

26. The consequences of face-threatening feedback on innovators’ psychological safety, affect, and willingness to engage in future innovation projects - PMC, accessed February 15, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9909226/

27. Avoiding Embarrassment: Mastering Face-Threatening Acts in Communication, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.howcommunicationworks.com/blog/2020/12/22/how-to-avoid-embarrassment-understanding-face-threatening-acts

28. “The Return of the ‘Cult’: Bad Religion in the Age of Trump and ..., accessed February 15, 2026, https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/ndownloader/files/56835200

29. Face and Politeness Theories, accessed February 15, 2026, https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/976d221e-a6d3-4b0a-afec-d9b8b035724c/content

30. THE MAGA MOVEMENT’S BIG UMBRELLA* Hank Johnston - 0. (28)4 Title-Ed staff, accessed February 15, 2026, https://mobilization.kglmeridian.com/downloadpdf/view/journals/maiq/28/4/article-p409.pdf

31. Personality Cult or a Mere Matter of Popularity? - PMC, accessed February 15, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9066393/

32. “Political Cults on College Campuses: How Universities Designed to Chal” by Ellie Lerner, accessed February 15, 2026, https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/4000/

33. Joining a Cult: Religious Choice or Psychological Aberration - EngagedScholarship@CSU, accessed February 15, 2026, https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1238&context=jlh

34. rejoining the cult: understanding and reducing ... - APSA Preprints, accessed February 15, 2026, https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets/orp/resource/item/67e4d41c81d2151a02e3be6c/original/rejoining-the-cult-understanding-and-reducing-blatant-political-bias.pdf

35. How the Psychology of Leadership is Affected by Cognitive Biases - RISEUP Global, accessed February 15, 2026, https://riseupglobal.co/how-the-psychology-of-leadership-is-affected-by-cognitive-biases/

36. (PDF) PSYCHOLOGY OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP: UNVEILING COGNITIVE BIASES AND EMOTIONAL INFLUENCE - ResearchGate, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387328911_PSYCHOLOGY_OF_STRATEGIC_LEADERSHIP_UNVEILING_COGNITIVE_BIASES_AND_EMOTIONAL_INFLUENCE

37. Understanding the Sunk Cost Fallacy: Why It Matters in Financial ..., accessed February 15, 2026, https://nvestadvisors.com/understanding-the-sunk-cost-fallacy/

38. Cognitive Biases – Executive Briefing - NCPRE’s Leadership Collection, accessed February 15, 2026, https://lcpathways.web.illinois.edu/leadership-challenges/cognitive-bias-and-errors/cognitive-biases-executive-briefing/

39. The Best Laid Plans: How Cognitive Biases Impact Leadership Decision-Making - GYST, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.gyst.com.au/blog/cognitive-biases-impact-leadership-decision-making?hsLang=en

40. Five Things Every Leader Should Know About Red Teaming, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.mcchrystalgroup.com/insights/detail/2025/08/19/five-things-every-leader-should-know-about-red-teaming

41. Think Like an Adversary: Using Red Teaming to Strengthen Learning & Change Strategies, accessed February 15, 2026, https://www.learningguild.com/articles/think-like-an-adversary-using-red-teaming-to-strengthen-learning-change-strategies

42. Applying Motivational Interviewing Strategies to Enhance Organizational Readiness and Facilitate Implementation Efforts - PMC, accessed February 15, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6927483/