The Sunk-cost Effect as an Optimal Rate-maximizing Behavior

Acta Biotheoretica

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 53-66

  Pavlic, Theodore P ^a   Passino, Kevin M ^a,b  

^a The Ohio State University   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Concorde fallacy; Escalation error; Optimal foraging theory; Patch residence time; Rationality; Solitary animal behavior

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; FUTURE PROSPECT; LONG-TERM CHANGE; OPTIMIZATION; PATCHINESS; RESIDENCE TIME;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 79952185291     PISSN: 00015342     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10441-010-9107-8     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Arkes HR, Ayton P (1999) The sunk cost and Concorde effects: are humans less rational than lower animals? Psychol Bull 125(5): 591-600.
2. Arkes H, Blumer C (1985) The psychology of sunk cost. Organ Behav Hum Decis 35: 124-140.
3. Charnov EL (1973) Optimal foraging: some theoretical explorations. PhD thesis, University of Washington.
4. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9(2): 129-136.
5. Dawkins R, Carlisle TR (1976) Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature 262(5564): 131-133.
6. Faver CA, Strand EB (2003) To leave or to stay? J Interpers Violence 18(12): 1367-1377. doi: 10. 1177/0886260503258028.
7. Giraldeau LA, Caraco T (2000) Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
8. Giraldeau LA, Livoreil B (1998) Game theory and social foraging. In: Dugatkin LA, Reeve HK (eds) Game theory and animal behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 16-37.
9. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1999) Models of adaptive behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Jakob EM (2004) Individual decisions and group dynamics: why pholcid spiders join and leave groups. Anim Behav 68(1): 9-20 doi: 10. 1016/j. anbehav. 2003. 06. 026.
11. Kanodia C, Bushman R, Dickhaut J (1989) Escalation errors and the sunk cost effect: an explanation based on reputation and information asymmetries. J Account Res 27(1): 59-77.
12. Nolet BA, Langevoord O, Bevan RM, Engelaar KR, Klaassen M, Mulder RJW, Dijk SV (2001) Spatial variation in tuber depletion by swans explained by differences in net intake rates. Ecology 82(6): 1655-1667 doi: 10. 1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1655: SVITDB]2. 0. CO; 2.
13. Nonacs P (2001) State dependent behavior and the marginal value theorem. Behav Ecol 12(1): 71-83.
14. Olsson O, Brown JS (2006) The foraging benefits of information and the penalty of ignorance. Oikos 112(2): 260-273 doi: 10. 1111/j. 0030-1299. 2006. 13548. x.
15. Olsson O, Holmgren NMA (1998) The survial-rate-maximizing policy for bayesian foragers: wait for good news. Behav Ecol 9(4): 345-353.
16. Pavlic TP (2007) Optimal foraging theory revisited. Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus. http://www. ohiolink. edu/etd/view. cgi?acc_num=osu1181936683.
17. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52(2): 137-154.
18. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2: 369-404.
19. Sih A, Christensen B (2001) Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when and why does it fail? Anim Behav 61(2): 379-390 doi: 10. 1006/anbe. 2000. 1592.
20. Staw BM (1981) The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Acad Manag Rev 6(4): 577-587.
21. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
22. van Gils JA, Schenk IW, Bos O, Piersma T (2003) Incompletely informed shorebirds that face a digestive constraint maximize net energy gain when exploiting patches. Am Nat 161(5): 777-793. doi: 10. 1086/374205.
23. van Gils JA, de Rooij SR, van Belle J, van der Meer J, Dekinga A, Piersma T, Drent R (2005) Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots shape Calidris canutus. I. prey choice. J Anim Ecol 74(1): 105-119. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1365-2656. 2004. 00903. x.