IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v52y2018i5d10.1007_s11135-017-0662-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do the sunk cost effect and cognitive dissonance increase risk perception? An empirical study in the context of city smog

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Qi

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Xiumei Guo

    (Curtin University)

  • Xia Wu

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Dora Marinova

    (Curtin University)

  • Jin Fan

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

Abstract

City smog is an increasingly severe environmental hazard in China. People are eager for ways to protect themselves from city smog. By utilizing two laboratory experiments based on real context of city smog, this paper investigates the impacts of sunk cost and cognitive dissonance on individuals’ risk perception of city smog. In Experiment 1, the results show that the risk perception of individuals with a sunk cost is significantly higher than those without. Moreover, cognitive dissonance has a significant influence on risk perception. In Experiment 2, the results suggest that: (1) the risk perception of a consumer with a prevention focus is significantly greater than that of those with a promotion focus; (2) the risk perception of a prevention-oriented consumer with no sunk cost is similar to that of a promotion-oriented consumer with sunk cost. The study concludes with policy implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Qi & Xiumei Guo & Xia Wu & Dora Marinova & Jin Fan, 2018. "Do the sunk cost effect and cognitive dissonance increase risk perception? An empirical study in the context of city smog," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2269-2289, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:52:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-017-0662-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-017-0662-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-017-0662-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-017-0662-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin, Lily & Flynn, Francis J., 2006. "Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from fit?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 216-230, July.
    2. Lee, Angela Y. & Aaker, Jennifer L. & Gardner, Wendi L., 2000. "The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Self-Construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus," Research Papers 1577r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    4. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    5. Ulset, Svein, 1996. "R&D outsourcing and contractual governance: An empirical study of commercial R&D projects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 63-82, July.
    6. Crowe, Ellen & Higgins, E. Tory, 1997. "Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 117-132, February.
    7. Yeosun Yoon & Gülen Sarial-Abi & Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, 2012. "Effect of Regulatory Focus on Selective Information Processing," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 93-110.
    8. Dowling, Grahame R & Staelin, Richard, 1994. "A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 119-134, June.
    9. Tom Y. Chang & David H. Solomon & Mark M. Westerfield, 2016. "Looking for Someone to Blame: Delegation, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Disposition Effect," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(1), pages 267-302, February.
    10. Cassiman, Bruno & Golovko, Elena & Martínez-Ros, Ester, 2010. "Innovation, exports and productivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 372-376, July.
    11. Scharfstein, David S & Stein, Jeremy C, 1990. "Herd Behavior and Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 465-479, June.
    12. Jonathan Lowell, 2012. "Managers and Moral Dissonance: Self Justification as a Big Threat to Ethical Management?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(1), pages 17-25, January.
    13. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    14. Pham, Michel Tuan & Avnet, Tamar, 2004. "Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 503-518, March.
    15. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    16. Cynthia G. Jardine & Steve E. Hrudey, 1997. "Mixed Messages in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 489-498, August.
    17. R. Preston Mcafee & Hugo M. Mialon & Sue H. Mialon, 2010. "Do Sunk Costs Matter?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(2), pages 323-336, April.
    18. Zeelenberg, Marcel & van Dijk, Eric, 1997. "A reverse sunk cost effect in risky decision making: Sometimes we have too much invested to gamble," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 677-691, November.
    19. JoNell Strough & Leo Schlosnagle & Lisa DiDonato, 2011. "Understanding Decisions About Sunk Costs From Older and Younger Adults' Perspectives," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 66(6), pages 681-686.
    20. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1982. "Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 1-9, January.
    21. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    22. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    23. Kennedy, David & Stiglitz, Joseph E. (ed.), 2013. "Law and Economics with Chinese Characteristics: Institutions for Promoting Development in the Twenty-First Century," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199698554.
    24. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    25. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    26. 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. Xia Wu & Wei Qi & Xi Hu & Shanshan Zhang & Dingtao Zhao, 2017. "Consumers’ purchase intentions toward products against city smog: exploring the influence of risk information processing," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 88(1), pages 611-632, August.
    2. Florack, Arnd & Keller, Johannes & Palcu, Johanna, 2013. "Regulatory focus in economic contexts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 127-137.
    3. Das, Gopal & Mukherjee, Amaradri & Smith, Ronn J., 2018. "The Perfect Fit: The Moderating Role of Selling Cues on Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Types," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 203-216.
    4. Negrini, Marcello & Riedl, Arno & Wibral, Matthias, 2022. "Sunk cost in investment decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1105-1135.
    5. Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2024. "Mass evacuation planning for disasters management: A household evacuation route choice behavior analysis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    6. Sun, Jin & Keh, Hean Tat & Lee, Angela Y., 2019. "Shaping consumer preference using alignable attributes: The roles of regulatory orientation and construal level," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 151-168.
    7. Marcello Negrini & Arno Riedl & Matthias Wibral, 2020. "Still in Search of the Sunk Cost Bias," CESifo Working Paper Series 8623, CESifo.
    8. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    9. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    10. Zhang, Jason Q. & Craciun, Georgiana & Shin, Dongwoo, 2010. "When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1336-1341, December.
    11. Leder, Susanne & Mannetti, Lucia & Hölzl, Erik & Kirchler, Erich, 2010. "Regulatory fit effects on perceived fiscal exchange and tax compliance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 271-277, April.
    12. 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).
    13. Adams, Leen & Faseur, Tineke & Geuens, Maggie, 2010. "The Influence of the Self-Regulatory Focus on the Effectiveness of Stop-Smoking Campaigns for Young Smokers," Working Papers 2010/38, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    14. Leković Milјan, 2020. "Cognitive Biases as an Integral Part of Behavioral Finance," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 58(1), pages 75-96, March.
    15. Vendrell-Herrero, Ferran & Bustinza, Oscar F. & Opazo-Basaez, Marco, 2021. "Information technologies and product-service innovation: The moderating role of service R&D team structure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 673-687.
    16. Lucia Mannetti & Ambra Brizi & Mauro Giacomantonio & E Tory Higgins, 2013. "Framing Political Messages to Fit the Audience’s Regulatory Orientation: How to Improve the Efficacy of the Same Message Content," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-1, October.
    17. Kanishka Gupta & Abdul Wajid & Dolly Gaur, 2024. "Determinants of continuous intention to use FinTech services: the moderating role of COVID-19," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(2), pages 536-552, June.
    18. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Yen, HsiuJu Rebecca & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Chia-Jung, 2013. "Product option framing under the influence of a promotion versus prevention focus," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 402-413.
    19. Singh, Sonika & Ratchford, Brian T. & Prasad, Ashutosh, 2014. "Offline and Online Search in Used Durables Markets," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 301-320.
    20. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel & Tuckwell, Anthony, 2021. "Evaluating the sunk cost effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 318-327.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:52:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-017-0662-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.