IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/miceco/v7y2019i1p161-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Persistent Sunk Cost Fallacy in a Real Effort Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Priyodorshi Banerjee
  • S. Chandrasekhar
  • P. Srikant

Abstract

Subjects chose whether to leave with an endowment or stay to perform some simple tasks in a real effort experiment. In addition to performance pay, staying subjects received their endowment in the control condition, but had to sacrifice it in the treatment condition. We found average performance of staying subjects, after controlling for selection effects, was higher in the treatment condition. Further, the sunk cost effect persisted well after the decision as to whether to stay or leave had been made. JEL Classification: D24, D83, J24

Suggested Citation

  • Priyodorshi Banerjee & S. Chandrasekhar & P. Srikant, 2019. "Persistent Sunk Cost Fallacy in a Real Effort Experiment," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 7(1), pages 161-172, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:miceco:v:7:y:2019:i:1:p:161-172
    DOI: 10.1177/2321022219851593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2321022219851593
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2321022219851593?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    3. Robalo, Pedro & Sayag, Rei, 2018. "Paying is believing: The effect of costly information on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 114-125.
    4. Guth, Werner & Ockenfels, Peter & Wendel, Markus, 1997. "Cooperation based on trust. An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 15-43, February.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Daniel Friedman & Kai Pommerenke & Rajan Lukose & Garrett Milam & Bernardo Huberman, 2007. "Searching for the sunk cost fallacy," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(1), pages 79-104, March.
    7. Gérard P. Cachon & Colin F. Camerer, 1996. "Loss-Avoidance and Forward Induction in Experimental Coordination Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(1), pages 165-194.
    8. Steve Buchheit & Nick Feltovich, 2011. "Experimental Evidence Of A Sunk‐Cost Paradox: A Study Of Pricing Behavior In Bertrand–Edgeworth Duopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(2), pages 317-347, May.
    9. Theo Offerman & Jan Potters, 2006. "Does Auctioning of Entry Licences Induce Collusion? An Experimental Study," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(3), pages 769-791.
    10. Cooper, Russell & Douglas V. DeJong & Robert Forsythe & Thomas W. Ross, 1993. "Forward Induction in the Battle-of-the-Sexes Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1303-1316, December.
    11. Sandeep Baliga & Jeffrey C. Ely, 2011. "Mnemonomics: The Sunk Cost Fallacy as a Memory Kludge," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 35-67, November.
    12. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    13. Arkes, Hal R. & Blumer, Catherine, 1985. "The psychology of sunk cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 124-140, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2017. "Cooperating over losses and competing over gains: A social dilemma experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 329-348.
    2. Negrini, Marcello & Riedl, Arno & Wibral, Matthias, 2022. "Sunk cost in investment decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1105-1135.
    3. Hirota, Shinichi & Suzuki-Löffelholz, Kumi & Udagawa, Daisuke, 2020. "Does owners’ purchase price affect rent offered? Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    4. Robalo, Pedro & Sayag, Rei, 2018. "Paying is believing: The effect of costly information on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 114-125.
    5. Florian Heine & Martin Sefton, 2018. "To Tender or Not to Tender? Deliberate and Exogenous Sunk Costs in a Public Good Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-28, June.
    6. Manel Baucells & Woonam Hwang, 2017. "A Model of Mental Accounting and Reference Price Adaptation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4201-4218, December.
    7. Martens, Nikolai & Orzen, Henrik, 2021. "Escalating commitment to a failing course of action — A re-examination," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    8. Nick Feltovich, 2011. "The Effect of Subtracting a Constant from all Payoffs in a Hawk‐Dove Game: Experimental Evidence of Loss Aversion in Strategic Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(4), pages 814-826, April.
    9. Anouar El Haji & Sander Onderstal, 2019. "Trading places: An experimental comparison of reallocation mechanisms for priority queuing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 670-686, November.
    10. Pedro Robalo & Rei S. Sayag, 2012. "Information at a Cost: A Lab Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-143/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Marcello Negrini & Arno Riedl & Matthias Wibral, 2020. "Still in Search of the Sunk Cost Bias," CESifo Working Paper Series 8623, CESifo.
    12. Chao Ma, 2021. "Be Cautious In The Last Month: The Sunk Cost Fallacy Held By Car Insurance Policyholders," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(3), pages 1199-1236, August.
    13. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Claude Montmarquette, 1996. "Cognition In Seemingly Riskless Choices And Judgments," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(2), pages 167-185, May.
    14. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Worker or Shirker – Who Evades More Taxes? A Real Effort Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201326, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    15. Zhang, nan & Qin, Botao, 2020. "Reference point adaptation and air quality – Experimental evidence with anti-PM 2.5 facemasks from China," MPRA Paper 102935, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Brülisauer, Marcel & Goette, Lorenz & Jiang, Zhengyi & Schmitz, Jan & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Appliance-specific feedback and social comparisons: Evidence from a field experiment on energy conservation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    17. Chang, Tom & Gross, Tal, 2014. "How many pears would a pear packer pack if a pear packer could pack pears at quasi-exogenously varying piece rates?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-17.
    18. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    19. Daniel Friedman & Kai Pommerenke & Rajan Lukose & Garrett Milam & Bernardo Huberman, 2007. "Searching for the sunk cost fallacy," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(1), pages 79-104, March.
    20. Hiromasa Takahashi & Junyi Shen & Kazuhito Ogawa, 2020. "Gender-specific reference-dependent preferences in the experimental trust game," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 25-38, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sunk cost; real effort experiment; selection effect; persistence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:miceco:v:7:y:2019:i:1:p:161-172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.