The sunk cost effect in pigeons and people: A case of within-trials contrast?

The sunk cost effect across species: A review of persistence in a course of action due to prior investment

“…One potentially important variable which has been neglected in research with both humans and nonhumans, however, is the delay between the time of the investment and the subsequent choice. White and Magalhães () showed that as the delay was increased in a standard scenario with human participants, the sunk cost effect decreased and even reversed at long delays. They suggested that the within‐trials contrast account should be modified to include a second process, depreciation of the value of the investment with increasing time in the past.…”

“…A major determinant of persistence in a course of action is the amount of prior investment, with greater investments or sunk costs generating a greater sunk cost effect (Bornstein & Chapman, 1995;Fantino, Navarro, & Stolarz-Fantino, 2008;Garland, 1990;Garland & Newport, 1991). In particular, the important determinant of the sunk cost effect seems to be the value of the already spent costs relative to a budget, or reference point, and not the absolute value of sunk costs (Garland & Newport, 1991;White & Magalhães, 2015). Additionally, a greater sunk cost tends to generate a higher level of commitment, but only when a project is in a later stage of completion (Moon, 2001).…”

“…Garland and Newport suggested that the effect of increasing investment size was proportional to overall budget size. Using a scenario similar to the ski trip scenario described by Arkes and Blumer (), White and Magalhães () showed that the sunk cost effect was determined by both absolute size of the investment and its relativity to the cost of the alternative option. It seems that when investment size is varied, both absolute and relative amounts can influence the sunk cost effect in humans.…”

“…Consistent with a sunk cost effect, however, attendance was high in the first month and decreased at later times. The exponential decrease in attendance (White & Magalhães, ) suggests depreciation of the sunk cost.…”

Region-specific CREB function regulates distinct forms of regret associated with resilience versus susceptibility to chronic stress

“…However, it has been postulated that sensitivity to sunk costs may have hidden utility (22). For instance, valuations calculated from predictions of future outcomes can be difficult and so basing decisions instead on past information may sometimes be a better predictor of future returns, which can serve as a useful heuristic when foraging (24,25,59,60,(62)(63)(64)(65). Alternatively, a sunk cost bias may emerge as a byproduct of enhanced sensitivity to change-of-mindinduced regret, is typified by a gain in regret type II both in RES mice as well as mCREB-treated animals in the mPFC, and conversely reduced by mCREB expression in the NAc.…”