Providing a reinforcement history that reduces the sunk cost effect

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 89, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 212-218

  Macaskill, Anne C ^a   Hackenberg, Timothy D ^b  

^a University of Florida   (United States)

^b REED COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making errors; Persistence; Pigeons; Sunk cost effect

Indexed keywords

AVIFAUNA; BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; BIRD; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC THEORY; ERROR ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; LEARNING; PERSISTENCE;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ESCAPE BEHAVIOR; NONHUMAN; PIGEON; REINFORCEMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; SUNK COST ERROR;

ANIMALS; COLUMBIDAE; DECISION MAKING; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

COLUMBA;

EID: 84857140688     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: 18728308     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Arkes H.R., Hutzel L. The role of probability of success estimates in the sunk cost effect. J. Behav. Decis. Making 2000, 13:295-306.
2. Avila-Santibanez R., Gonzalez-Montiel J.C., Miranda-Hernandez P., Guzman-Gonzalez M.D. Stimuli effects on optimal behavior in a sunk-cost situation with pigeons. Mex. J. Behav. Anal. 2010, 36:17-29.
3. Case D.A., Fantino E., Goodie A.S. Base-rate training without case cues reduces base-rate neglect. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1999, 6:319-327.
4. De la Piedad X., Field D., Rachlin H. The influence of prior choices on current choice. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2006, 85:3-21.
5. Fantino E., Kanevsky I.G., Charlton S.R. Teaching pigeons to commit base-rate neglect. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 16:820-825.
6. Fantino E., Savastano H. Humans' responses to novel stimulus compounds and the effects of training. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1996, 3:204-207.
7. Garland H. Throwing good money after bad: the effect of sunk costs on the decision to escalate commitment to an ongoing project. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990, 75:728-731.
8. Goltz S.M. A sequential learning analysis of decisions in organizations to escalate resources investments despite continuing costs or losses. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 1992, 25:561-574.
9. Goltz S.M. Examining the joint roles of responsibility and reinforcement history in recommitment. Decision Sci. 1993, 24:977-994.
10. Goltz S.M. Can't stop on a dime: the roles of matching and momentum in persistence of commitment. J. Organ. Behav. Manage. 1999, 19:37-63.
11. Goodie A.S., Fantino E. Learning to commit or avoid the base-rate error. Nature 1996, 380:247-249.
12. Goodie A.S., Fantino E. What does and does not alleviate base-rate neglect under direct experience. J. Behav. Decis. Making 1999, 12:307-335.
13. Macaskill, A.C., Hackenberg, T.D., 2012. The sunk-cost effect with pigeons: some determinants of decisions about persistence. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., in press.
14. Navarro A.D., Fantino E. The role of discriminative stimuli in the sunk cost effect. Mex. J. Behav. Anal. 2007, 33:19-29.
15. Navarro A.D., Fantino E. The sunk cost effect in humans and pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2005, 85:1-13.
16. Navarro A.D., Fantino E. The sunk-time effect: an exploration. J. Behav. Decis. Making 2009, 22:252-270.
17. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211:453-458.