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

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 112, Issue , 2015, Pages 22-28

  White, K Geoffrey ^a   Magalhães, Paula ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Concurrent choice; Delay to choice; Investment size; Sunk cost effect; Within trials contrast

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; BIRD; DATA SET; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY;

HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INVESTMENT; NONHUMAN; PIGEON; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; SUNK COST EFFECT; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; PIGEONS AND DOVES; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REINFORCEMENT; TIME;

COLUMBA;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLUMBIDAE; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84921903129     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: 18728308     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.035     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Alessandri J., Darcheville J.-C., Delevoye-Turrell Y., Zentall T.R. Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay. Learn. Behav. 2008, 36:352-358.
2. Arantes J., Grace R.C. Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations. Learn. Behav. 2008, 36:1-11.
3. Arantes J., Grace R.C. Contrast and value: beyond the work ethic effect. A reply to Zentall (2008). Learn. Behav. 2008, 36:26-28.
4. Arkes H.R., Ayton P. The sunk cost and concorde effects: are humans less rational than lower animals?. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125:591-600.
5. Arkes H.R., Blumer C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1985, 35:124-140.
6. Avila-Santibañez R., Gonzalez-Montiel J.C., Miranda-Hernandez P., Guzman-Gonzalez M.L. Stimuli effects on optimal behavior in a sunk-cost situation with pigeons. Mexican J. Behav. Anal. 2010, 36:17-29.
7. Aw J.M., Vasconcelos M., Kacelnik A. How costs affect preferences: experiments on state dependence, hedonic state and within-trial contrast in starlings. Anim. Behav. 2011, 81:1117-1128.
8. Bornstein B.H., Chapman G.B. Learning lessons from sunk costs. J. Exp. Psych.: Appl. 1995, 1:251-269.
9. Clement T.S., Feltus J.R., Kaiser D.H., Zentall T.R. Work ethic in pigeons: reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2000, 7:100-106.
10. DiGian K.A., Friedrich A.M., Zentall T.R. Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2004, 11:889-895.
11. Fantino E. Behavior-analytic approaches to decision making. Behav. Process. 2004, 66:279-288.
12. Fantino E., Navarro A., Stolarz-Fantino S. Multiple causes of the sunk-cost effect. Psychology of Decision Making 2007, 141-157. Nova Science Publishers, New York. G.R. Burthol (Ed.).
13. Fantino E., Stolarz-Fantino S. Behavioral approaches to decision making. Comparative Decision Making 2013, 211-234. Oxford University Press, New York. P.H. Crowley, T.R. Zentall (Eds.).
14. Friedrich A.M., Clement T.S., Zentall T.R. Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement. Learn. Behav. 2005, 33:337-342.
15. 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.
16. Garland H., Newport S. Effects of absolute and relative sunk costs on the decision to persist with a course of action. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 48:55-69.
17. Gipson C.D., Miller H.C., Alessandri J.J.D., Zentall T.R. Within-trial contrast: the effect of probability of reinforcement in training. Behav. Process. 2009, 82:126-132.
18. Gourville J.T., Soman D. Payment depreciation: the behavioral effects of temporally separating payment from consumption. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25:160-174.
19. Killeen P. On the temporal control of behavior. Psychol. Rev. 1975, 82:89-115.
20. Klein E.D., Bhatt R.S., Zentall T.R. Contrast and the justification of effort. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2005, 12:335-339.
21. Macaskill A.C., Hackenberg T.D. Providing a reinforcement history that reduces the sunk cost effect. Behav. Process. 2012, 89:212-218.
22. Macaskill A.C., Hackenberg T.D. The sunk cost effect with pigeons: some determinants of decisions about persistence. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2012, 97:85-100.
23. Magalhães P., White K.G. The effect of a prior investment on choice: the sunk cost effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2014, 40:22-37.
24. Magalhães P., White K.G. Persistence in extinction: the sunk time effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2014, 40:38-54.
25. Magalhães P., White K.G. A good time to leave? The sunk time effect in pigeons. Behav. Process. 2014, 105:1-5.
26. Magalhães P., White K.G., Stewart T., Beeby E., van der Vliet W. Suboptimal choice in nonhuman animals: rats commit the sunk cost error. Learn. Behav. 2012, 40:195-206.
27. Navarro A.D., Fantino E. The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2005, 83:1-13.
28. Pattison K.F., Zentall T.R., Watanabe S. Sunk cost: pigeons (Columba livia), too, show a bias to complete a task rather than shift to another. J. Comp. Psychol. 2012, 126:1-9.
29. Singer R.A., Berry L.M., Zentall T.R. Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: contrast or delay reduction?. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2007, 87:275-285.
30. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211:453-458.
31. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J. Certainties and mysteries in the within-trial contrast literature: a reply to Zentall (2008). Learn. Behav. 2008, 36:23-25.
32. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J., Lionello-DeNolf K.M. Failure to replicate the work-ethic effect in pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2007, 87:383-399.
33. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J., Lionello-DeNolf K.M. When is a failure to replicate not a type II error?. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2007, 87:405-407.
34. White K.G. Forgetting functions. Anim. Learn. Behav. 2001, 29:193-207.
35. White K.G. Can choice be suboptimal?. Comparative Decision Making 2013, 235-238. Oxford University Press, New York. P.H. Crowley, T.R. Zentall (Eds.).
36. Yi R., Gatchalian K.M., Bickel W.K. Discounting of past outcomes. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2006, 14:311-317.
37. Zentall T.R. Within-trial contrast: when you see it and when you don't. Learn. Behav. 2008, 36:19-22.
38. Zentall T.R. Justification of effort by humans and pigeons: cognitive dissonance or contrast?. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 19:296-300.
39. Zentall T.R. Animals prefer reinforcement that follows greater effort: justification of effort or within-trial contrast?. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 2013, 8:60-77.
40. Zentall T.R. How studying animals can clarify the basis of human decision making. Comparative Decision Making 2013, 239-242. Oxford University Press, New York. P.H. Crowley, T.R. Zentall (Eds.).
41. Zentall T.R. When animals misbehave: analogs of human biases and suboptimal choice. Behav. Process. 2015, 12:3-12.
42. Zentall T.R., Singer R.A. Within-trial contrast: when is a failure to replicate not a type I error?. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2007, 87:401-404.