Abstract
The sunk cost fallacy is one of the irrational choice behaviors robustly observed in humans. This fallacy can be defined as a preference for a higher-cost alternative to a lower-cost one after previous investment in a higher-cost alternative. The present study examined this irrational choice by exposing pigeons to several types of trials with differently illuminated colors. We prepared three types of non-choice trials for experiencing different outcomes after presenting same or different colors as alternatives and three types of choice trials for testing whether pigeons demonstrated irrational choice. In non-choice trials, animals experienced either of the following: (1) no reinforcement after the presentation of an unrelated colored stimulus to the alternatives used in the choice situation, (2) no reinforcement after investment in the lower-cost alternative, or (3) reinforcement or no reinforcement after investment in the higher-cost alternative. In choice trials, animals were required to choose in the following three situations: (A) higher-cost vs. lower-cost alternatives, (B) higher-cost vs. lower-cost ones after some investment in the higher-cost alternative, and (C) higher-cost vs. lower-cost alternatives after the presentation of an unrelated colored stimulus. From the definition of the sunk cost fallacy, we assumed that animals would exhibit this fallacy if they preferred the higher-cost alternative in situation (B) compared with (A) or (C). We made several conditions, each of which comprised various combinations of three types of non-choice trials and tested their preference in three choice trials. Pigeons committed the sunk cost fallacy only in the condition that contained non-choice trials (3), i.e., pigeons experienced reinforcement after investing in the higher-cost alternative. This result suggests that sunk cost fallacy might be caused by the experiences of reinforcement after investing in the higher-cost alternative.
Highlights
The sunk cost fallacy is defined as a tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made (Arkes and Blumer, 1985)
From the definition of the sunk cost fallacy suggested above, we considered that the sunk cost fallacy occurred when pigeons preferred the higher-cost alternative only in probe B and not in probe A and C
All pigeons did not prefer the higher-cost key in the other probes. These results show that pigeons do not commit the sunk cost fallacy when they have no experiences related to the lower- and/or higher-cost keys
Summary
The sunk cost fallacy is defined as a tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made (Arkes and Blumer, 1985). This effect is considered as an irrational choice behavior from the perspective of classical economic and normative decision theories (Garland and Newport, 1991). In human studies, Arkes and Blumer (1985) systematically examined the sunk cost fallacy using the following types of scenarios. The question is: should you invest the last 10% of the research funds to finish your radar-blank plane?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
