Abstract
The present study was designed to extend research by Pattison et al. (2012) and compare performance on behavior-based and hypothetical scenario-based sunk cost procedures. Participants (n = 25) completed behavior-based and hypothetical scenario-based tasks to investigate the effects of manipulating percent of task completed on sunk cost behavior. For the behavior-based task, participants played a video game and chose between continuing to engage an initial monster or switching to attack a new monster that arrived. For the hypothetical scenario-based tasks, participants were given a scenario in which continuing on a present course of action entailed losses or was otherwise non-optimal. They were asked at various points of completion how likely they were to invest the remaining funds in the project. Overall, participants responded optimally on the behavior-based task and engaged in sunk cost behavior for the hypothetical scenario-based tasks. One explanation for the difference between these tasks is that the behavior-based task may have more discriminable consequences; the consequences for the hypothetical tasks were unknown. Results from the present study align with previous studies suggesting that stimulus discriminability is a major determinant of non-optimal persistence on a task. It is possible that many supposed instances of the sunk cost effect are better conceptualized as behavior produced by contingencies in contexts with uncertain or probabilistic outcomes. In sunk cost procedures with human participants, verbal behavior appears to play an important role.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the openICPSR repository, https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/138943/version/V1/view
References
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.
Avila, R., Yankelevitz, R. L., Gonzalez, J. C., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2013). Varying the costs of sunk costs: Optimal and non-optimal choices in a sunk-cost task with humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 100(2), 165–173.
Cunha Jr., M., & Caldieraro, F. (2009). Sunk-cost effects on purely behavioral investments. Cognitive Science, 33(1), 105–113.
Englmaier, F., & Schmöller, A. (2010). Determinants and effects of reserve prices in hattrick auctions (No. 326). SFB/TR 15 Discussion Paper.
Friedman, D., Pommerenke, K., Lukose, R., Milam, G., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Searching for the sunk cost fallacy. Experimental Economics, 10(1), 79–104.
Garland, H. (1990). Throwing good money after bad: The effect of sunk costs on the decision to escalate commitment to an ongoing project. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 728.
Garland, H., & Newport, S. (1991). Effects of absolute and relative sunk costs on the decision to persist with a course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48(1), 55–69.
Harman, J., Gonzalez-Valejjo, C., & Vancouver, J. (2020). Dynamic Sunk Costs: Importance matters when opportunity costs are explicit. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 6.
Ho, T. H., Png, I. P., & Reza, S. (2018). Sunk cost fallacy in driving the world’s costliest cars. Management Science, 64(4), 1761–1778.
Macaskill, A. C., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2012a). Providing a reinforcement history that reduces the sunk cost effect. Behavioural Processes, 89(3), 212–218.
Macaskill, A. C., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2012b). The sunk cost effect with pigeons: some determinants of decisions about persistence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97(1), 85–100.
Macaskill, A. C., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2013). Optimal and nonoptimal choice in a laboratory‐based sunk cost task with humans: A cross‐species replication. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 100(3), 301–315.
Magalhães, P., & Geoffrey White, K. (2016). The sunk cost effect across species: A review of persistence in a course of action due to prior investment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 105(3), 339–361.
Magalhães, P., White, K. G., Stewart, T., Beeby, E., & van der Vliet, W. (2012). Suboptimal choice in nonhuman animals: Rats commit the sunk cost error. Learning & Behavior, 40(2), 195–206.
Nash, J. S., Imuta, K., & Nielsen, M. (2019). Behavioral investments in the short term fail to produce a sunk cost effect. Psychological Reports, 122(5), 1766–1793.
Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2005). The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83(1), 1–13.
Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2007). The role of discriminative stimuli in the sunk cost effect. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 33(1), 19–29.
Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2009). The sunk-time effect: An exploration. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(3), 252–270.
Pattison, K. F., Zentall, T. R., & Watanabe, S. (2012). Sunk cost: Pigeons (Columba livia), too, show bias to complete a task rather than shift to another. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(1), 1–9.
Roth, S., Robbert, T., & Straus, L. (2015). On the sunk-cost effect in economic decision-making: a meta-analytic review. Business research, 8(1), 99–138.
Tan, H. T., & Yates, J. F. (1995). Sunk cost effects: The influences of instruction and future return estimates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3), 311–319.
Yáñez, N., Bouzas, A., & Orduña, V. (2017). Rats behave optimally in a sunk cost task. Behavioural Processes, 140, 47–52.
Funding
This study was funded in part by a Graduate Student Research Grant awarded by Western Michigan University and in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Ethical Approval
All the procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board at our institution, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Code availability
Not applicable
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The first author conducted the study at Western Michigan University and is now at NIDA. This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of the first author’s doctoral degree at Western Michigan University. Thanks to Callum Smith and Dylan Veenkant for their help in data collection and to Jordan Bailey for help with coding the experimental task.
Appendix
Appendix
Hypothetical Scenarios
Radar Blank Plane Scenario
You are president of Aero-Flite Corporation, an airplane manufacturer. You have spent $[1/3/5/7/9] million of the $10 million budgeted for a research project to develop a radar-scrambling device that would render a plane undetectable by conventional radar (in effect, a radar blank plane). The project is [10/30/50/70/90]% complete. Another firm has begun marketing a similar device that takes up less space and is much easier to operate than Aero-Flite’s.
How likely is it (from 0 to 100) that if faced with this situation, you would decide to use the last $9 million dollars to complete this project? Click and drag the slider below to choose your answer.
Building Remodel Scenario
You are the owner and manager of Security Tower, and older downtown office building that overlooks several square blocks in an area that has been slated for urban renewal over the next three years. The City Council has indicated that it would like to create a “greenway” with grass, trees, and a small lake networked with bicycle and jobbing paths. You have begun remodeling your building, anticipating renewed interest in downtown offices, with convenient parking, good access to the cross-town freeway, and a nice view. You have spent $[10k, 30k, 50k,70k, 90k] of the approximately $100,000 you had budgeted for remodeling and the project is [10, 30, 50, 70, 90]% complete. You have just learned that the “greenway” plan has been voted down in favor of a sports stadium that will give all 15 floors of your building a view of cement walls and/or parking lots. Additionally, the increased traffic in the area will clog the freeway access for years, even with the plans to widen adjacent streets.
How likely is it (from 0 to 100) that if faced with this situation, you would decide to use the last $90,000 dollars to complete this project? Click and drag the slider below to choose your answer.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Devoto, A., DeFulio, A. The Sunk Cost Effect in Humans: Procedural Comparisons. Psychol Rec 72, 275–283 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00499-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00499-2