Dynamic Sunk Costs: Importance matters when opportunity costs are explicit.
The sunk cost fallacy is a well-established phenomenon where decision makers continue to commit resources, or escalate commitment, because of previously committed efforts, even when they have knowledge that their returns will not outweigh their investment. Most research on the sunk cost fallacy is done using hypothetical scenarios where participants make a single decision to continue with a project or to abandon it. This paradigm has several limitations and has resulted in a relatively limited understanding sunk cost behavior. To address some of these limitations, we created a dynamic repeated choice paradigm where sunk costs are learned over time and opportunity costs are explicit. Over three experiments we show that the sunk cost fallacy depends on the relative a priori importance of the goal being invested in. We observed escalation of commitment only when the sunk cost domain is more important than alternatives (explicit opportunity costs), and participants showed de-escalation of commitment to the sunk costs domain otherwise.
Arkes, H. R. (1996). The psychology of waste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 213–224.
Arkes, H.R & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.
Arkes, H.R. & Hutzel, L. (1997). Waste heuristics. In M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, and K. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, Ethics, and Behavior: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation (pp. 154–168). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.
Baron (2008) Thinking and Deciding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dohrenwend, B. S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1974). Stressful life events: Their nature and effects. Oxford England: John Wiley & Sons. Held, 1986
González Vallejo, C., Cheng, J., Phillips, N., Chimeli, J., Bellezza, F., Harman, J., Lassiter, G. D. and Lindberg, M. J. (2013), Early Positive Information Impacts Final Evaluations: No Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect and a Test of a Dynamic Judgment Model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1796
Held, T. (1986). Institutionalization and deinstitutionalization of the life course. Human Development, 29(3), 157-162.
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 1-55. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J
Northcraft, Gregory B.; Neale, Margaret A. (1986) “Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, v. 37 issue 3, p. 348-356.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York, NY England: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review Of Psychology, 53(1), 491-517. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135213
Shin and Arieley (2004). “Keeping Doors Open: The Effect of Unavailability on Incentives to Keep Options Viable.” Management Science, Vol. 50, No 5: 575-586.
Strough, J., Schlosnagle, L., Karns, T., Lemaster, P., & Pichayayothin, N. (2014). No time to waste: Restricting life‐span temporal horizons decreases the sunk‐cost fallacy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(1), 78-94.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Wrosch, C., & Freund, A. M. (2001). Self-regulation of normative and non-normative developmental challenges. Human Development, 44(5), 264-283. doi:10.1159/000057066
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Adaptive Self-Regulation of Unattainable Goals: Goal Disengagement, Goal Reengagement, and Subjective Well-Being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1494-1508. doi:10.1177/0146167203256921
White, L., & Keith, B. (1990). The effect of shift work on the quality and stability of marital relations. Journal Of Marriage And The Family, 52(2), 453-462. doi:10.2307/353039
- 2021-02-17 (2)
- 2020-12-17 (1)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.