Sunk cost: Pigeons (columba livia), too, show bias to complete a task rather than shift to another

Journal of Comparative Psychology

Volumn 126, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 1-9

  Pattison, Kristina F ^a   Zentall, Thomas R ^a   Watanabe, Shigeru ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b KEIO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Pigeons; Suboptimal choice; Sunk cost

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; PIGEONS AND DOVES; REINFORCEMENT; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLUMBIDAE; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 84863762990     PISSN: 07357036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0023826     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals? Psychological Bulletin, 125, 591-600.
2. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (2000). The psychology of sunk cost. In T. Connolly, H. R. Arkes, & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgement and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bean, D., Mason, G. J., & Bateson, M. (1999). Contrafreeloading in starlings: Testing the information hypothesis. Behaviour, 136, 1267-1282.
4. Bhatt, R. S., & Wasserman, E. A. (1987). Choice behavior of pigeons on progressive and multiple schedules: A test of optimal foraging theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 40-51.
5. Brockner, J. (1992). The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress. The Academy of Management Review, 17, 39-61.
6. Brosnan, S. F., Jones, O. D., Lambeth, S. P., Mareno, M. C., Richardson, A. S., & Schapiro, S. J. (2007). Endowment effects in chimpanzees. Current Biology, 17, 1-4.
7. Chen, M. K., Lakshminaryanan, V., & Santos, L. R. (2006). The evolution of our preferences: Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 114, 517-537.
8. Cicerone, R. A. (1976). Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 257-261.
9. Clement, T. S., Feltus, J., Kaiser, D. H., & Zentall, T. R. (2000). "Work ethic" in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 100-106.
10. Fantino, E. (1967). Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 35-43.
11. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
12. Forkman, B. (1991). Some problems with the current patch-choice theory: A study on the Mongolian gerbil. Behaviour, 117, 243-254.
13. Friedrich, A. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2004). Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain. Behavioural Processes, 67, 405-415.
14. Gilby, I. C., & Wrangham, R. W. (2007). Risk-prone hunting by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) increases during periods of high diet quality. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 1771-1779.
15. Green, L., & Myerson, J. (1996). Exponential versus hyperbolic discounting of delayed outcomes: Risk and waiting time. American Zoologist, 36, 496-505.
16. Inglis, I. R., & Ferguson, N. J. K. (1986). Starlings search for food rather than eat freely available, identical food. Animal Behaviour, 34, 614-617.
17. Kacelnik, A., & Bateson, M. (1996). Risky theories: The effects of variance on foraging decisions. American Zoologist, 36, 402-434.
18. Kacelnik, A., & Marsh, B. (2002). Cost can increase preference in starlings. Animal Behaviour, 63, 245-250.
19. Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 79, 1277-1284.
20. Lakshminaryanan, V., Chen, M. K., & Santos, L. R. (2008). Endowment effect in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 3837-3844.
21. Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1998). Control by sample location in pigeons' matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 235-251.
22. Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & Urcuioli P. J. (2000). Transfer of pigeons' matching-to-sample to novel sample locations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 141-161.
23. Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2005). The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 1-13.
24. Neuringer, A. J. (1969, October 17). Animals respond for food in the presence of free food. Science, 166, 399-401.
25. Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundaries of Koss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 119-128.
26. Rubin, J. Z., & Brockner, J. (1975).Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1054-1063.
27. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
28. Siberberg, A., Roma, P. G., Huntsberry, M. E., Warren-Boulton, F. R., Sakagami, T., Ruggiero, A. M., & Suomi, S. J. (2008). On loss aversion in capuchin monkeys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 145-155.
29. Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577-587.
30. Watanabe, S. (2009). The Concorde fallacy in pigeons. In S. Watanabe, A. P. Blaisdell, L. Huber, & A. Young (Eds.), Rational animals, irrational humans (pp. 135-149). Tokyo, Japan: Keio University.
31. Zentall, T. R. (2007). Reinforcers following greater effort are preferred: A within-trial contrast effect. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8, 512-527.