Abstract

Continuing investing in a failing plan (i.e., the sunk-cost fallacy) is a common error that people are inclined to make when making decisions. It is impossible to get resources back that already have been invested. Hence, economic theory implies that decision makers’ decisions should only be guided by future gains and losses. According to the literature, the sunk-cost fallacy is driven by negative affect. Previous studies focused on negative incidental affect. We investigated, in contrast, whether the sunk-cost fallacy is caused by integral affect elicited by the specific decision context. Study 1 demonstrated a positive relationship between affective reaction and the sunk-cost fallacy. Study 2 replicated the finding in Study 1 in a within-subjects design, and demonstrated a full mediation of type of scenario (invest vs. non-invest) on the sunk-cost effect, mediated by integral affective reaction. A mediation using a within-subjects design additionally demonstrated that the effect is mediated by integral emotional responses experienced in relation to each scenario, and not by incidental emotional states that are unrelated to the scenarios. Study 3 replicated findings in the previous studies, and demonstrated that the relation between the sunk-cost fallacy and affect is moderated by justification. Participants who justified their decision were more resistant to the sunk-cost fallacy, and showed less negative affect elicited by the scenarios, than participants who did not justify their decision. Study 4 provided supporting evidence for our hypothesis by hindering conscious deliberation, and promoting reliance on affect, via cognitive load. The results showed that the relation between affect and the sunk-cost fallacy was stronger for participants under high cognitive load, than under low-load. The paper discussed how this research leads to new ways to protect against the sunk-cost fallacy in the discussion.

Highlights

  • You ordered a full course dinner at a restaurant that includes several appetizers, entree, main course and dessert

  • Three participants were excluded from the analyses because the mean response on the pleasure scale deviated more than 2.5 standard deviations from the sample mean response

  • Negative affective responses to scenarios were related to higher sunk-costs decisions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

You ordered a full course dinner at a restaurant that includes several appetizers, entree, main course and dessert. People will continue eating the dessert in order to justify earlier investments that are already made. That is, having ordered the full course dinner and need to pay for it, people feel they should finish it, even though continue eating is not enjoyable anymore; it would be a waste to “pay and not eat”. The normative correct decision in sunk-cost situations is to ignore past investments. Taking into account past losses or investments is a decision strategy that has been dubbed the ’Sunk-Cost fallacy’ or ’Sunk-Cost effect’. It is considered a mistake or faulty strategy. 124) put it, the sunk-cost effect refers to the tendency “to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made” As Arkes and Blumer ([1] p. 124) put it, the sunk-cost effect refers to the tendency “to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made”

Objectives
Methods
Results
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call